|
| |
| Home >> General Public User >> Law Of Torts>> India>>Nature of Torts |
The Nature Of A Tort |
Other important cases that contributed towards the development of the law of torts in India are.
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
However, the most significant case in the field of torts in India is that of the Bhopal Gas Leak Case.
In the early hours of December 3, 1984, a tank with 43 tonnes of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) gas, in the Union Carbide factory, in Bhopal, released toxic gases, which engulfed the whole city within minutes. Almost 500,000 people were exposed to the deadly gas and. approximately 20,000, till date, are believed to have died as a result. Over 120,000 people continue to suffer from the effects of this disaster, which is described as one of the worst cases of Industrial Disasters ever in the history of civilisation peculiar problem regarding the compensation arose because of the large number of the victims, most of who belonged to the lower economic strata of the society. This paved the concept of Class Action in India, probably for the first time in its legal history.
The Government of India introduced the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act, 1985 and thereby brought a representative suit in the United States District Court of New York, which was eventually dismissed on the ground that Indian courts have the competency over the issue. On4th. April 1988, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered an interim compensation of Rs. 250 crores.
Finally, the Supreme Court in its order dated 14th.and 15th.February, 1989, 5th. April 1989 and 4th. May 1989 directed the Union Carbide Corporation to pay a sum of USD 470 million as damages
(Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India) AIR 1990, SC 273
However, till date, application of Tort is minimal in India in comparison to that in UK or US and the main cause could be the lack of consciousness of one’s rights and knowledge of availability of remedies in case of infringement of such rights. It is high time that the courts and legislature in India start to take a positive approach towards the implementation of tort rules for a healthy development of this branch of law.
b) Tort distinguished from breach of contract or breach of trust
In case of a contract, the duty is imposed by an agreement between the parties whereas in tort the obligation already stands cast by law without any choice.Moreover, in a contractual relationship, the duty imposed by law is towards the other party with whom there is privity of contract. In tort, the duty lies towards the members of the public or world at large with whom there need not be any agreement.
Loss suffered due to breach of contract can be made good by liquidated damages, if provided for. However, in tort, there is no scope for liquidated damages. It can be mentioned here that damages are ‘liquidated’ when the sum payable is predetermined. When the amount payable is not predetermined and depends on the discretion of the court, it is known as ‘unliquidated’.
Inspite of the dissimilarities, there exist a relationship between these two applications of law. In Maya Bhatia v. New Delhi Municipal Council (AIR 1998, SC 223) the Supreme Court observed, “in cases arising out of contract equity steps in and tort takes over and imposes liability upon the defendant for unquantified damages for the breach of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff”
In case of breach of trust, the beneficiary can claim compensation, which depends on the loss that trust property has suffered which is predetermined and hence such damages are liquidated in nature. Damages in a tort are always unliquidated as mentioned before.
|
 |
|
|
