Dam release negligence and act of God defence failed; reasonable compensation allowed despite imperfect proof of loss.

Release of large quantities of water from a dam, causing flooding, was treated as negligence because the dam owners failed to prove adequate precautions, proper water-level management, or that rainfall was so extraordinary as to amount to an act of God; the defence therefore failed under strict liability and Rylands v. Fletcher principles. Although exact monetary loss was not proved, substantial damage was established by reports and photographs, so reasonable compensation could be awarded on available material, including apportionment where natural forces and negligence both contributed. The Court also used Article 142 to assess compensation on a reasonable basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the release of water from the dam in the circumstances amounted to negligence or was excused as an act of God. (ii) Whether compensation could be awarded despite the absence of exact proof of the quantum of loss.

Issue (i): Whether the release of water from the dam in the circumstances amounted to negligence or was excused as an act of God.

Analysis: The admitted release of large quantities of water caused flooding and damage to the appellants' plantation. The onus lay on the dam owners to show that they had maintained an appropriate water level, taken reasonable precautions for the monsoon, and established that the rainfall was so extraordinary that the release was unavoidable. Mere reliance on heavy rain and public interest was insufficient. Applying the principle of strict liability and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, the absence of proof of due care and preventive steps established negligence, and the defence of act of God was not made out.

Conclusion: The release of water was not shown to be protected by the act of God defence and was held to be negligent.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation could be awarded despite the absence of exact proof of the quantum of loss.

Analysis: Although the appellants did not prove exact monetary loss, the court commissioners' report and photographs established substantial damage, including uprooting of trees and submergence of the land. Where loss is proved but precise quantification is difficult, reasonable compensation may be awarded, and damages may be apportioned where the injury results from both natural forces and negligence. In exercise of power under Article 142, the Court assessed a reasonable sum on the material available.

Conclusion: Compensation was held payable on a reasonable basis despite the absence of exact proof of the amount of loss.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded and were awarded compensation with interest and costs, the Court holding the respondents liable in negligence for the damage caused by the release of water from the dam.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person who controls an artificial accumulation of water fails to show reasonable precautions against foreseeable overflow, the defence of act of God is unavailable, and damages may be awarded on a reasonable basis even if exact quantification is not proved, including by apportionment where both natural forces and negligence contributed to the loss.

---