Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a plea filed by a family from north Kashmir’s Pattan, seeking compensation of Rs 30 lakh for the tragic death of their daughter. The young woman lost her life in 2012 when a poplar tree fell on her during a severe windstorm.

The court presided over by Justice Sindhu Sharma delivered the judgment, stating that “the sudden and act of nature which could not be foreseen and had resulted in falling of the trees would not make them (state) liable to pay compensation.”

The court further held that the incident “The wind storm was an act of nature and negligence is not attributable to the respondents (state),” emphasising that the trees lining the roadside did not fall under non-natural use of land or hazardous activity, thereby rejecting the application of the principle of strict liability.

The court's decision came in response to the family's plea, which alleged negligence on the part of authorities.

The family's argument centered on the contention that the Public Works Department (PWD) had failed to adequately maintain the trees, with the absence of pruning and removal of dry, dead, and partially broken trees. They asserted that negligence and carelessness on the part of the authorities led to the tragic accident.

According to the family, their 18-year-old daughter was walking along the road on March 20, 2012, when a strong windstorm caused the poplar tree to fall, critically injuring her and claiming her life three days later at SKIMS Hospital.

In response, the authorities maintained that the damage was a result of a natural calamity, specifically a massive storm that uprooted and broke numerous trees across Kashmir. They argued that the trees being situated roadside did not constitute a dangerous activity or non-natural use of land, thus limiting their liability in the matter. “the damage caused was due to natural calamity i.e., an act of God,” the state authorities further contended.

The court, while explaining the principle of strict liability, emphasised that the petitioners' claim against the respondents was rooted in allegations of negligence and carelessness. According to the principle of strict liability, certain hazardous activities, posing a continuous threat to individuals and property, may be permitted with appropriate safety measures in place. This principle holds that individuals who introduce potentially harmful elements onto their property must take responsibility for preventing any harm they may cause. Failure to do so renders them liable for all damages resulting from their escape. However, the principle of strict liability, the court clarified “would only be applicable if there is non-natural use of the land. The exception of these principles is concerned, where there is a act of God or by nature events.”

The court, while sympathetic to the family's loss, declined to entertain the case further, stating that the circumstances surrounding the incident and questions of negligence were matters of fact beyond the purview of the court in these proceedings.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition finding no merit in it.

 

Cause Title: Khazir Mohammad Ganai v State of J&K [OWP No 939/2012]