1 SA 655.2007 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2007 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.H.Joshi,Advocates for the appellants. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. 2. The present respondent/plaintiff had filed Suit for damages on account of the fact that the sugarcane crop in his field got burnt as the wires got snapped. The trial Court dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. The appellate Court dismissed Appeal and decreed the Suit filed by the plaintiff. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. S.H.Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that even perusing the evidence of the plaintiff, it is manifest that the appellant had taken all necessary care. Even the loops were fixed and it is only due to the act of 2 SA 655.2007 God i.e. heavy wind and storm, the wires got snapped and because of which the sugarcane crop of the plaintiff got burnt. Even as per Law of Torts also, the appellant has taken all reasonable care which a man of ordinary prudence is expected to take. As such, once it is proved that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant and it was an act of God, the appellant can not be made liable. The learned counsel further contends that even there is nothing on record to assess the actual loss. Only on the basis of the panchanama prepared by the police, the Court below has awarded the damages. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel are based on the principle of strict liability as evolved in Ryland V/s Flecher’s case we would be concerned with the concept of absolute liability, which lays down that the liability of the owner would be absolute without any exceptions. In light of the principle of absolute liability, even if no negligence is proved, still the owner would be liable. 6. In this case, it is not disputed that the 3 SA 655.2007 sugarcane crop of the plaintiff got burnt because of the snapping of wires, which are maintained by the present appellant. In light of the fact that the incident is not disputed and invoking principle of absolute liability, I do not find any error committed by the lower appellate Court in fastening liability on the present appellant. As far as the factum of damages are concerned, the Court below has considered the panchanama prepared by police immediately after the incident. The court has also considered the sugarcane sent to the sugar factory of the same field in the previous year. All these factors have been taken into consideration and the damages have been assessed. 7. In light of the fact that the view taken by the Court below is a plausible view, the Second Appeal being devoid of any substantial question of law is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 8. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is also dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 655.2007 4 SA 655.2007