In vishakapatnam gas tragedy, chemical company is private. question is who will be responsible govt or such company ? check it

In vishakapatnam gas tragedy,chemical company is private. question is who will be responsible govt or such company ?
#lawinroutine

Let’s consider it

Recently a chemical gas has been leaked from a polymer chemical plant privately owned company by LG polymers industries in vishaka patnam also known as ‘vizag gas tragedy ‘ because Visakhapatnam got its name from Lord Visakheswara Temple (Also known as Lord Karthikeya, second son of Lord Shiva) now located beneath the seawaters. ... Thus visakhapatnam became Vizagapatam and in short, Vizag. The citizens of visakhapatnam came to be known as Vizagites.

There is rule of strict liability in law of tort which in suggested in Ryland vs Fletcher 1868 LR 3 HL case.
An English case , in this case defendant have a artificial water reservoir . one day due to heavy rain water reservoir got damaged and all water flow out which damage the plaintiff coal; deposit. It was pleaded by the defendant that he is not liable for such damage because damage to plaintiff was not done intentionally and act is inevitable.

Blackburn J spoke on behalf of all the judges said that We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes is prima facie answerable for all the damage . defendant held guilty , intention is immaterial . defendant held strictly liable for the damages of plaintiff done by him.

IN MC MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA AIR 1987 SC . 1086

This case was happened just after one year of gas tragedy in Bhopal. In December 1985 4-6 december oleum gas was leaked from one of the units of shriram foods and fertilixers in the city of delhi , najafgarh. Which leads to a death of an practicing advocate of tis hazari and many more . Petitioner approached to supreme court under article 32 as a violation of right to life aand demands to urgently cease the industry and compensation to all victims.
Supreme court in this case introduce a rule of ‘absolute liability’ similar to strict liability in rylands case. But it’s scope is much wider and stronger then rylands case. Justice bhagwati held that our judiciary is enough to tackle such harsh and tough decisions on the matters which hurts the public life in a massive way . said that rule of strict liability does not fit better in our present modern induian scenario where a massive numbers of person from a society got infected from the damages.

IN BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY CASE 1984 .[UNION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION] 1990

IN THIS CASE Over 3,000 people had died in the tragedy due to release of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas. A government affidavit in 2006 stated that the leak caused 558,125 injuries, including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries. Others estimate that 8,000 died within two weeks, and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases.

. Supreme court held UCIL company liable for the whole gas tragedy . precedented judgement of mc Mehta vs union of india case 1987 applying the rule of ‘absolute liability’ in present case which is suggested in prior mc Mehta case. whether such act is not intentionally or inevitable person or corporate body holds hazardious body in its territory which affects the public shall be liable for the damages. The Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) gave a compensation of USD 470 million (Rs 750crore at the time of settlement) after the toxic gas leak from the Union Carbide factory on the intervening night of December 2-3, 1984 killed over 3,000 people and affected 1.02 lakh more

1-3 LAKH compensation given to the families of a victim who died in tragedy or in a fatal cases and 2 lakh to critical injured victims or partial disableility and 1 lakh to affected victims.
There is a settlement done between supreme court and ucil company in 1990 that company shall pay compensation to victims. Freshly in 2020 january , a curative petition is filed in supreme court to enhance compensation amount and to collect fron the successor firm of UCIL COMPANY.

THE PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ACT, 1991.

An Act to provide for public liability insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the persons affected by accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto
This statute was the result of Bhopal gas tragedy case and introduced after it

In MP ELECTRICITY BOARD VS SHAIL KUMAR AIR 2002 S.C. 551

IN this supreme court held that electricity availed to a public is a responsibility of electricity board . if the energy transmisitted through wire remains potentially in a wire . duty of boards member to check the wire to not remain openly in public and liable for damages to the sufferers .

In MP ELECTRICITY BOARD VS SMT. SUNDER AIR 2006

MP HIGH COURT held board liable for compensation of 84,000 for the death of victims caused by naked electric wire.

Conclusion....

If the act causing harms to anhttps://www.facebook.com/Law-In-Routine-616926752087272/y person or public whether it is done intentionally or non intentionally , such person or corporate body shall be liable for the damages caused to the victims. If the act done by intentionally , such act is obviously liable for the punishment of death caused by negligence u’/s 304 A IPC OR FOR negligence under law of tort.
rule of absolute liability introduce by apex court in mc Mehta case in justifiable with the present vishaka patnam gas tragedy case. After considering above cases , we can conclude that also in the present case LG polymer industry shall be liable for damages. Their intention to cause damages or not is immaterial as similar stated by supreme court in carbide has case of Bhopal gas tragedy 1984.

Thank you... #lawinroutine