Mukesh Textiles Pvt Ltd v H.R. Subramanya Sastry, AIR 1987 KANT 87

MUKESH TEXTILES PVT LTD V. H R SUBRAMANYA SASTRY

Mukesh Textiles Pvt Ltd v. H.R. Subramanya Sastry, AIR 1987 KANT 87

Whether the appellant’s negligence to take care of the molasses tank was the direct cause of the damage to the crop or whether the damage causes was too remote in respect to an independent event?
Whether the proof backs the compensation of Rs 14,700 as a just compensation with respect to the damages?

The principle of legal causation with respect to liability and quantification of damages of the neighbor principle indicates that an individual must not only take utmost care but should also ensure to not inflict injury recklessly.
The rule of strict liability requires that the person storing non natural things on their land owes a duty in the situation that the things stores escapes and inflicts damages to others.
The principle of “novus actus interveniens” (intervention of a new act) is applicable only when it can be proved that the act was caused by a stranger

Mukesh Textile Mills was the owner of a sugar factory in Shimoga, Karnataka. There was an agricultural land right next to the sugar factory which was owned by Subramanya Shastry, which had water running between the sugar factory and the agricultural land.
The Textile Mills stored molasses in tanks made of different products (2 steel and 1 mud) wherein the mud container was closer to the agricultural land of the respondent.
Due to the mud container being attacked by rodents, on 16.04.1970, the product from the container overflowed in the water that runs in the respondent’s land, thus damaging the crops of the respondent.
The respondent approached the Civil Judge in Shimoga who held that it was an Act of God and the owner of the sugar mills could not have anticipated it. Contrary to the damages requested of Rs 35,000, the court granted a compensation of Rs 14,700 as damages for the injury to the crops.
Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent approached the Karanataka High Court.

The High Court allowed the appeal partly with respect to the damages amount and held the Mills liable for negligence since they had a duty towards the respondent and they failed to fulfill the duty.
The High Court recognized that the Textile Mills had a duty to act carefully and not inflict any damages but the fact that they were aware of the rodent infestation of the mud container of molasses is an indication that they should have anticipated the damage of the container.
The High Court also held that by storing huge quantities of perishable products adjacent to an agricultural land, the owner of the mills forms a relationship with the outsider and therefore has to behave in a reasonable manner.
The High Court also held that the principle of new intervening act would not be applicable in the case since there was a continuous chain of events from the rodent infestation of the mud container to the leakage of molasses thus destroying the land.