Case Title: Johny Padikala versus P.C.Hassan and other
Case No: RFA No.544 of 2004.
Decided on : 9th February of 2024.
Quorum: Justice Sathish Ninan
Facts of the case:
The first defendant is the owner of a shop and he gave the room to second defendant for storing explosive substances. The plaintiff is the owner to the opposite building of defendant. There was a huge explosion in first defendant building because of that the plaintiff building was completely damaged. And third defendant is denied because he did not take part in the business.
Trial court found that business was done only by second defendant. So the claim has been dismissed on third defendant. The first defendant liable because he was the owner to the place where explosives has been stored so he faced challenges against this.
Trial court has raised a question is first defendant will be liable when the business was occupied by the tenant. Mainly the first defendant is a partner and also the owner of the place as it is liable for damages. And there is no evidence that there is partnership with second defendant. So it fails. They are considering regarding that he was a owner. But he gave for lease for dangerous activity. It is an absolute liability. So he will be liable.
Contentions:
The plaintiff says that three of the defendants were doing joint business as partners. It is filed for claiming damages of 3 lakhs. So the first defendant(owner) did not accept the allegation because he is not at all involved in it. He said that it was given lease to the second defendant. And the second defendant was doing his business with all proper licenses. It was not his negligence from his side and took precautions too.
Court Analysis and Judgement:
It is considered from the previous case laws that is Ryland versus Fletcher (1868)L.R.3 H.L.330 it states that a person who stores dangerous activities provides few exceptions. In Santha versus Secretary 214 (1)KHC 723 says that owner of the premise will be liable for the conduct of dangerous activity. The suit against first defendant will stand dismissed .1st Defendant cannot be held liable for the damages claimed. The trial court has not discussed regarding the liability of the 1st defendant but proceeded to find that defendants 1 and 2 are liable. The appeal is allowed. The decree and Judgment of the trial court insofar as it is against the 1st defendant is set aside. The suit as against the 1st defendant will stand dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace
