Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 565 (GAU)

K. Ringzuala v. State Of Mizoram

2020-06-10

NELSON SAILO

body2020
JUDGMENT Nelson Sailo, J. - This Order will dispose of both the appeals since they are filed by the rival parties concerned against the same Judgment & Order dated 02.09.2011 and the Decree dated 02.09.2011 which was passed by the Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 15/2003. RFA No. 27/2011 is filed by the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) while RFA No. 21/2012 is filed by the State of Mizoram (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). 2. Heard Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and also heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the defendants. 3. The facts of the case may briefly be narrated at the outset. The plaintiff is the owner of the land covered by LSC No. AZL 1371/1992, located at Durtlang Leitan wherein he constructed a 3 (three) storey building. Besides staying in the building himself, he rented out some portion of the building to his tenants and receiving a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. 4. The Public Works Department (PWD) Road North Division under the Govt. of Mizoram took up the task of widening the road from Bawngkawn, upto Durtlang Leitan. As the hill side of the road is rocky, the defendants, particularly the Executive Engineer, Road North Division, PWD and the Sub- Divisional Officer, Road North Division, PWD (defendant Nos. C. Lalramzauva, A.R Malhotra, Lalfakawma Avila Laltanpuii 5 & 6) blasted the rocky portion of the land with explosives in order to remove the earth and rocks. The PWD, besides explosives, used JCB and Hitachi Crane and other earth moving equipments to remove the earth adjacent to the building of the plaintiff. 5. The work to widen the road was started from Bawngkawn side and then moved up towards Durtlang Leitan. When the widening work reached the building of the plaintiff, the plaintiff requested the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 not to use explosives to blast the rocky portion adjacent to his land and building and instead do the work manually. However, the State respondents did not pay heed to his request and started blasting the rocky portion of the land by using explosives. As a result, the building of the plaintiff was damaged and it became uninhabitable. The plaintiff was, therefore, forced to move out from his building and stay elsewhere on rent. 6. However, the State respondents did not pay heed to his request and started blasting the rocky portion of the land by using explosives. As a result, the building of the plaintiff was damaged and it became uninhabitable. The plaintiff was, therefore, forced to move out from his building and stay elsewhere on rent. 6. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, filed Civil Suit No. 15/2003 before the Court of The Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl claiming a sum of Rs. 40,66,900/- from the defendants as compensation for the damages caused to his building. He also prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 from carrying out any widening of the road adjacent to his building at Durtlang Leitan, the cost of the suit and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 7. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement denying that the blasting of the rocks in the process of widening Bawngkawn to Durtlang Leitan road had caused any damages to the land and building of the plaintiff. Along with the written statement, the defendants enclosed a copy of the Estate Officer''s report wherein a detailed assessment of the building of the plaintiff was worked out to a sum of Rs. 3,77,224/-. As such, the defendants denied of having caused any damage to the plaintiff''s building and also the claim of the plaintiff for paying him compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,66,900/- for re-construction of his building along with a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for causing him mental agony and anguish. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following 3 (three) issues:- wxyz i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style. zyxw wxyz ii) Whether the house of the plaintiff was damaged/cracked. If so, to what extent. And if so, whether it was caused by blasting rocks by the defendants. zyxw wxyz iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or not. If so, to what extent. zyxw 9. In support of his claim, the plaintiff, during the trial, examined 7 (seven) plaintiff witnesses including himself while the defendants examined 2 (two) defendant witnesses. 10. And if so, whether it was caused by blasting rocks by the defendants. zyxw wxyz iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or not. If so, to what extent. zyxw 9. In support of his claim, the plaintiff, during the trial, examined 7 (seven) plaintiff witnesses including himself while the defendants examined 2 (two) defendant witnesses. 10. After the rival parties led their respective evidences, the Trial Court, by deciding all the 3 (three) issues in favour of the plaintiff, passed the impugned judgment & order and the decree as already mentioned herein above. Thus, the parties being aggrieved have filed the present 2 (two) appeals. 11. Mr. A.R Malhotra, appearing for the plaintiff submits that the widening of the Bawngkawn to Durtlang Leitan road was carried out by the PWD in the year 2003 by using explosives and other heavy machineries. That the house of the plaintiff being situated near Leitan was severely damaged due to the use of explosives by the PWD to carry out their work. The plaintiff approached the Chairman of the Disaster Management Committee, Aizawl District who was also the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl to look into the matter and the Chairman of the Committee, in turn, requested Geologists to verify the matter. Two psersons viz; Shri. H. Lalbiakkima and Shri. F. Lalnuntluanga, both Geologist Junior conducted verification on 24.10.2003, as requested by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl. Referring to the report of the two Geologist Junior, marked as Exhibit P-4, Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel submits that as per their recommendation, it was indicated that even though PWD used controlled blasting for cutting of the rocks to widen the road but at the same time, blasting without controlled system was also done at the floor portion of the road. The shock triggered by such uncontrolled blasting could be felt from a relatively far distance of about 500 meters. As such, the shock might have produced breaking of cementing materials between the rock beds. Although the breaking of this cohesive force may not have caused imminent failure of rock bed but it can pave a good channel way for seepages and produce plane of weaknesses along the rock plane resulting susceptibility of failure for the years to come. Therefore, certain recommendations were made for taking precautionary measures to cope with possible mishaps. Mr. Although the breaking of this cohesive force may not have caused imminent failure of rock bed but it can pave a good channel way for seepages and produce plane of weaknesses along the rock plane resulting susceptibility of failure for the years to come. Therefore, certain recommendations were made for taking precautionary measures to cope with possible mishaps. Mr. A.R Malhotra submits that the recommendations included construction of a thick and strong retaining wall on the bed rock along the cut-off portion to enable to retain the cut off over burdened soil and that the retaining wall should be made with RCC pillars. 12. Mr. A.R Malhotra further submits that a second verification was conducted again on 07.11.2003 wherein it was found that cracks had developed on the floor and beam of the house. Cracks of about 21ft in length and 1 inch in width developed on the floor of the house and similarly cracks developed at the beam. The cracks on the floor and the beam of the house were not there when the Geologists conducted investigation on 24.10.2003 and therefore, it was clear that the building was affected and no longer safe for living. The second verification report thus concluded with a recommendation that the house should be vacated and that the building be dismantled for the safety of the people living in the surrounding areas. He therefore submits that it is clear from the two verification reports that the building of the plaintiff suffered major damages and made the building unsafe for dwelling. He submits that as the PWD did not respond to the request made by the plaintiff to assess the damages caused to his building, the plaintiff approached an Engineer from the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) and accordingly, he made an estimate for re- construction of the house of the plaintiff and for construction of a retaining wall, which was to the tune of Rs. 30,66,900/- and exhibited by the plaintiff as Exhibit P-5. The plaintiff also examined the author of the estimate report during the suit proceedings and as such, the Trial Court ought to have accepted the same. However, the Trial Court instead relied upon the estimate prepared by the PWD, Estate Officer, which was only to the tune of Rs. 3,77,224/-. 13. Mr. The plaintiff also examined the author of the estimate report during the suit proceedings and as such, the Trial Court ought to have accepted the same. However, the Trial Court instead relied upon the estimate prepared by the PWD, Estate Officer, which was only to the tune of Rs. 3,77,224/-. 13. Mr. A.R Malhotra also submits that the evidence led by all the plaintiff witnesses corroborate with each other and so the plaintiff could establish the fact that his building was completely damaged due to the blasting work undertaken by the PWD by using explosives for widening Bawngkawn to Durtlang Leitan road. Insofar as the 2 (two) defendant witnesses are concerned, Mr. A.R Malhotra submits that as they are only interested witnesses and therefore no reliance can be placed upon their evidence. 14. Mr. A.R Malhotra submits that the fact of the PWD having conducted blasting without controlled system as reported by the two Geologist Junior in their report and recommendation dated 24.10.2003 is clearly established from the deposition of the defendant No. 5 as DW-1 in his examination-in- chief. He submits that the said witness clearly admitted to the fact that blasting was conducted at the ground level which was at a distance of 2.5 meters from the residence of Shri. Thangfala, situated opposite to the house of the plaintiff. The said witness further deposed that due to the damage caused to the building of the plaintiff, he had to construct a new building with RCC structures adjacent to his old building. Further, by referring to the examination-in-chief of the said witness, he submits that the time taken for blasting the rocky portion of the entire Leitan area was about 3 (three) months. 15. Mr. A.R Malhotra further refers to the examination-in-chief of DW-2 and submits that as per the deposition of the said witness, field investigations were conducted during the period from September to 19th Ocotber, 2003 during which more than 20 (twenty) blasts were conducted and consequent impacts monitored to record the Peak Particular Velocity (PPV). He submits that the evidence of DW-2 is only contrary to the evidence of DW-1 because according to the DW-1, blasting of the Leitan area was done during July, August and September 2003. He submits that in fact, DW-2 clearly admitted that the rocks in Durtlang area could be broken with ordinary hammer used for household purposes. He submits that the evidence of DW-2 is only contrary to the evidence of DW-1 because according to the DW-1, blasting of the Leitan area was done during July, August and September 2003. He submits that in fact, DW-2 clearly admitted that the rocks in Durtlang area could be broken with ordinary hammer used for household purposes. If such was the case, he submits that one can very well imagine how the blasting of the rocks by explosives can have an impact on the residential building of the plaintiff. 16. Mr. A.R Malhotra lastly submits that assuming for the sake of argument that the damages caused to the building of the plaintiff is not directly attributable to the blasting conducted by the PWD but even in this case, the principle of strict liability would still apply. In other words, the defendants are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for damages sustained by him on his building as they were engaged in a highly dangerous activity such as blasting of rocks with explosives close to his landed property. Mr. A.R Malhotra, in support of his submissions relies upon the following authorities:- wxyz (i) Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 527 . zyxw wxyz (ii) Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2016) 12 SCC 1 . zyxw 17. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant in RFA No. 21/2012 who were the defendants before the trial Court has three fold submissions. His first submission is that the estimate made by the Engineer of the PHED and which is relied by the plaintiff is in fact not an estimate for re-construction of the alleged damaged building of the plaintiff but in fact it is an estimate for construction of a new RCC building. He submits that there was no old RCC building standing which required to be re-constructed due to the alleged damages caused because of the explosives used by the PWD in the process of widening Bawngkawn to Durtlang Leitan road. Secondly, he submits that the cracks said to have been caused in the beam and on the floor of the house of the plaintiff was not due to the blasting made for widening of the road concerned. Secondly, he submits that the cracks said to have been caused in the beam and on the floor of the house of the plaintiff was not due to the blasting made for widening of the road concerned. Thirdly, he submits that the claim of the plaintiff that despite approaching the PWD, the said authorities refused to make any assessment of the damages caused to the building of the plaintiff is factually incorrect. In fact, there is no documentary evidence or proof produced by the plaintiff to show that he ever approached the PWD for making an assessment. 18. The learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court heavily relied upon the evidence of 2 (two) witnesses i.e., PW-3 and DW-2. Referring to the report submitted by the PW-3, after the first verification was conducted on 24.10.2003, the learned counsel submits that he being a Geologist, he could not have rendered any opinion in the manner in which the blasting was carried out. He submits that there are no basis for the said witness to opine that there was uncontrolled blasting. Referring to the reinvestigation report, which was conducted on 07.11.2003 and exhibited by the plaintiff as Exhibit P-7, the learned counsel submits that PW-3 and Shri. F. Lalnuntluanga, both Geologists Junior were requested by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Aizawl District to conduct investigation on the house site of the plaintiff on 03.12.2003. However, the two Geologist Junior visited the house site on 07.11.2003 for reasons best known to them. Referring to the deposition of the PW-3 in his cross-examination, the learned counsel submits that PW-3 deposed that he was born and brought up in Leitan, Durtlang and he admitted the fact that he did not have any knowledge or degree in respect of blasting technology. He further deposed that he was not an expert in blasting and he could not say whether the shock waves of the blast goes in a particular direction or all around. The learned counsel also submits that the said witness further deposed that the floor of the house of the plaintiff which was cemented upon the base of the earth was without any iron rods and also had cracks. He also deposed that he did not know if the cracks in the building of the plaintiff was due to shrinkage of cement, inferior-quality of cement, sand, etc, inferior workmanship or due to wear and tear. He also deposed that he did not know if the cracks in the building of the plaintiff was due to shrinkage of cement, inferior-quality of cement, sand, etc, inferior workmanship or due to wear and tear. The said witness also admitted to the fact that no test was conducted on the soil beneath the house of the plaintiff, nor around the plaintiff''s house. The learned counsel submits that under the circumstance, the evidence of PW-3, which was heavily relied upon by the Trial Court, being wholly inadequate and inconclusive, the same could not have been the basis for awarding compensation to the plaintiff. 19. Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel for the defendants further submits that from the evidence of DW-2 it can be seen that the investigations were conducted during the period from September to 19th October, 2003. During these periods, more than 20 (twenty) blastings were conducted and the consequent impacts were monitored to record the PPV, their dominant frequencies and air overpressure by using seismograph. According to the said witness, the safe vibration limit for a structure based on soil/weather or soft rock condition is 70 milimetres per second, as per IS 6922 of 1973. However, in case of hard rock structure foundation, the safe vibration limit is below 100 mm/s. The dangerous frequency of seismic waves generated by blasting on the plaintiff building structure/foundation would have to be less than 8 hertz. Further, according to the said witness, he being a blasting expert, he stated that the ground vibration from a blast can be felt even at a distance of 1 kilometer. This, however, does not mean that the vibration is dangerous and having any potential damage value to any structure unless the ground vibration value and the corresponding frequency is measured and checked by a seismograph designed specifically for blasting. According to him, he took part and supervised the blasting operation done by the PWD as he was the competent person. His report showed that the blasting done near the house of the plaintiff was never near the dangerous level to cause any damage to his building structure. He deposed that damaged to a structure but will appear immediately after the blasting i.e., within 5 (five) minutes. The plaintiff, according to his knowledge, did not complain that his building was damaged at the time of blasting. 20. Mr. He deposed that damaged to a structure but will appear immediately after the blasting i.e., within 5 (five) minutes. The plaintiff, according to his knowledge, did not complain that his building was damaged at the time of blasting. 20. Mr. Lalfakawma further referring to the cross-examination of DW-2 submits that according to the said witness, cracks occurred in a building during a blast where stress occurs i.e., in the corner of the room and not in the middle of the beam like the one he saw in the plaintiff''s building. He deposed that he has conducted blasting in buildings all over the country and he was making his statements on the basis of his experience and experiments. The said witness also stated that granite, quartz and basalt rock can also be broken by an ordinary hammer used for household purposes. 21. Mr. Lalfakawma also refers to the evidence of the plaintiff himself and submits that the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief deposed that he once sat in the JCB which was used for widening the road alongside his building. According to him, the cracks occurred only inside his house and that there were no cracks outside his house. Mr. Lalfakawma further refers to the structural investigation made by Shri. K. Ringzuala on the building of the plaintiff which is marked as Exhibit P-2 and submits that as per the observation made in the investigation report, the plaintiff claimed that he had widened the cracks caused by the blasting as he wanted to carry out a repair. The cracks claimed due to blasting were not visible at the outside of the building. Further, as per investigation report, some layers of paints were also visible inside the cracks which implied that the cracks developed long before blastings were carried out. 22. Mr. Lalfakawma, to sum up his argument submits that from the evidence led by PW-3 alone, the learned Trial Court could not have concluded that the house and building of the plaintiff was indeed damaged due to the blasting carried out by the PWD, without there being any corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses. He therefore submits that the impugned judgment & order and the decree passed by the learned Trial Court being misconceived, the same should be set aside and quashed. 23. He therefore submits that the impugned judgment & order and the decree passed by the learned Trial Court being misconceived, the same should be set aside and quashed. 23. I have heard the submissions made by the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the Lower Court Records. 24. From the case projected by the parties, facts undisputed is that the PWD carried out the widening of the Bawngkawn to Durtlang Leitan road in the year 2003 and in the process, the PWD deployed machineries like JCB, Hitachi Cranes and other earth moving equipments. The PWD also used explosives for blasting the rocky portion of the road in the process of widening of the road. The plaintiff is the owner of a plot of land covered by LSC No. AZL 1371/1992 located towards the north eastern end of Durtlang Leitan. According to the plaintiff, due to the blasting of the rocks by use of explosives, his building situated in his plot of land sustained damages and accordingly, he approached the Chairman of Disaster Management Committee, Aizawl District, to look into the matter. Accordingly, the Chairman requested the Geologist to verify the matter. Verification was conducted on 24.10.2003 by Shri. H. Lalbialkkima (PW-3) and Shri. F. Lalnuntluanga both the Geologist Junior. As per their report marked as Exhibit P-4, it is stated that the house of the plaintiff was reported to have become vulnerable for landslip due to the road side cutting done by the PWD and that the plaintiff and his family could not stay in their house peacefully during the rain and had to stay out at night in the house of their neighbours. The report indicated that even though the PWD deployed explosive expert in the work of widening of the road, most of the blasting of the rock bed was done through controlled blasting. The shock caused by the blasting could be felt in the surrounding areas resulting in anxiety and concern of the nearby inhabitants. The recommendation of the two Geologist Juniors was that even though the PWD used controlled blasting for cutting the road side, blasting without controlled system was also applied by the Department at the floor portion of the road. The shock triggered by such uncontrolled blasting could be felt from a relatively far distance of about 500 meters. The recommendation of the two Geologist Juniors was that even though the PWD used controlled blasting for cutting the road side, blasting without controlled system was also applied by the Department at the floor portion of the road. The shock triggered by such uncontrolled blasting could be felt from a relatively far distance of about 500 meters. The shock might have produced breaking of cementing materials between the rock beds. The breaking of this cohesive forces may not cause imminent failure of rock bed but it could pave a good channel way for seepages and produce plane of weaknesses along the rock plane resulting susceptibility of failure for the years to come. Therefore, proper precautionary measures were required to be taken to cope with possible mishaps. Thus, the recommendation made was (i) A thick and strong retaining wall should be constructed on the bed rock along the cut off portion to enable to retain the cut-off overburdened soil. The retaining wall should be made with RCC pillars. (ii) The posts of the main building on the frontage should rest on the bed rock as it appears that the posts/foundation does not reach the bed rock. (iii) The structure of the house on the road level be examined by structural Engineer from the PWD for doing the needful since the house acts as a supporting structure of the main building along the slope. (iv) The cut-off portion of Leitan khurchhung which stand as vertical walls be dressed properly as far as possible to avoid rock fall in the future. 25. The plaintiff has also exhibited a re-investigation report of his house which was carried out on 07.11.2003 pursuant to the request made by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Aizawl District vide his Letter dated 23.10.2003. PW-3 and Shri. F. Lalnuntluanga, who had earlier made their verification on 24.10.2003 on visiting the house of the plaintiff on 07.11.2003 found that cracks had developed on the floor and the beam of the house. Cracks of about 21 ft in length and 1 inch width developed on the floor of the house. Also small cracks had developed on 5th November, 2003 at the beam. The cracks on the floor and on the beam of the house were not there when the Geologist had conducted investigation on 24.10.2003. Cracks of about 21 ft in length and 1 inch width developed on the floor of the house. Also small cracks had developed on 5th November, 2003 at the beam. The cracks on the floor and on the beam of the house were not there when the Geologist had conducted investigation on 24.10.2003. Therefore, the work of widening the road from Bawngkawn to Durtlang Leitan clearly affected the house of the plaintiff and it was no longer safe for living with the present condition. It was therefore concluded that since no precautionary measure was taken in the area so far, the house site was very vulnerable for disaster and therefore, the house should be vacated to avoid any untoward incident. It was also concluded that seepages of water at the lower parts of the house was noticed and these seepages of water below the main building played the main role in destabilization of the house. Since the house site became unstable and vulnerable for hazards, it was suggested that the same be dismantled for the safety of the inmates and people of the surrounding area. 26. In order to established his claim, the plaintiff examined as many as 7 (seven) plaintiff witnesses including himself. The plaintiff as PW-1 in his examination-in-chief deposed that due to the use of explosives in blasting the rocky portion of the land adjacent to his building, his building was completely damaged and became uninhabitable and beyond repair. He was, therefore, forced to vacate his building from the month of October, 2003 and he lived in a rented house by paying rent at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. According to the plaintiff, for the purpose of re-construction of his house, it would cost him a sum of Rs. 30,66,900/-, as estimated by the Engineer of the PHED, and who was also examined as one of the plaintiffs witness. The plaintiff deposed that he had approached the PWD, Building Division to make an estimate for re-construction of his building but as they refused, he approached the SDO of the PHED to make the estimate. He also deposed that for the mental agony and anguish caused to him by the defendants, they were liable to pay him a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as damages in addition to the estimated amount for re-construction of the building. He also deposed that for the mental agony and anguish caused to him by the defendants, they were liable to pay him a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as damages in addition to the estimated amount for re-construction of the building. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination, stated that the distance of the road from his house before the widening of the road was less than 10 ft and after widening, it was less than 5 ft. He stated that the cracks occurred inside his house only and there were no cracks outside his house. He further stated that the Durtlang VCP, accompanied by the Executive Engineer, PWD Aizawl Road North Division came to his house and requested him to allow the PWD to widening the road by cutting his land and to which he did not agree as he was not assured of adequate compensation. The plaintiff further stated that the building was a 3 (three) storey building structure and was constructed by his father. However, he could not say in which year it was constructed. According to him, the 3rd storey of the house was with separate pillars and was first built by his father while he was away. The 1st and 2nd storey was built a few years later by making separate pillars. However, all the 3 (three) storey building are connected together by tie beams. The pillars of the building rested on the soil on top of the rock plate and due to the blasting, the building slipped. The plaintiff further stated that the blasting occurred at around 3:00 PM and the cracks appeared after 10:00 PM and he left the building sometime in the month of October, 2003. He also stated that the pillars and beams of all the 3 (three) floors are made of cement concrete while the floors are made of hardened soil. The walls of all the 3 (three) storey are made of tin-sheets while the wall towards back side of all the storey are made of cubic stone. The roof of all the storeys are made of G.I sheets (tin-sheets). The plaintiff also admitted that his building was not fully RCC building and that only the pillars and beams were made of concrete. 27. The roof of all the storeys are made of G.I sheets (tin-sheets). The plaintiff also admitted that his building was not fully RCC building and that only the pillars and beams were made of concrete. 27. The plaintiff further in his cross-examination also stated that there was another house next to his house at about 40 ft and there was no damage to that house due to the blasting. The cracks inside his house and along the floor did not extend outside the house. That in Durtlang Leitan area, he was the only one who had sued the Government as it was only his house which was damaged. The plaintiff in his re-examination stated that the reason why the occupants of the building vacated the building was due to fear of the same collapsing. The building was located in the slope and if it rained, there was possibility of the rock plate slipping due to the disturbance created by the blasting. Before the blasting, there was hardly any seepage of water into the building when it rains but after the blasting, water seeped into the building with good force. 28. Shri K. Laldingliana was also examined as one of the plaintiff witness and his deposition although brief were in similar lines with the statements of the plaintiff. The said witness, in his cross-examination, stated that the cracks appeared only inside the building and not on the ground outside the building and they were only in the lowest floor. He also stated that the floor of the lowest floor was cemented and there is no usage of iron rod but the mud was flattened and thereafter cemented. 29. Shri. Zairema was also examined as one of the plaintiff witness and he stated that during the year 2003, he was the President of the Young Mizo Association (YMA), Leitan Branch. The plaintiff reported to the Branch YMA that the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 had blasted the land adjacent to his land and building for widening of Bawngkawn to Durtlang Leitan road causing damages to his building and requested the Branch YMA to take necessary steps. Accordingly, a committee was convened and as per the resolution of the committee, he visited the house of the plaintiff and found cracks in the floor of his building and due to which it was uninhabitable. Accordingly, a committee was convened and as per the resolution of the committee, he visited the house of the plaintiff and found cracks in the floor of his building and due to which it was uninhabitable. In his opinion, the blasting done by the defendants caused the cracks. In his cross-examination, the said witness reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 30. Shri. David Lalrintluanga was also examined as one of the plaintiff witness and in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that due to the use of explosives in blasting of the rocky portion of the land adjacent to the plaintiff''s building, his building was completely damaged and became uninhabitable and beyond repair. As a result, the plaintiff vacated his house in the month of October, 2003 and occupied his house as a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- till the later part of May 2005. He also stated that the plaintiff constructed a new Assam Type house by the side of his building, which was damaged by the blasting taken up by the PWD. The said witness in his cross-examination reiterated what is stated in his examination-in-chief. 31. Smt. K. Lalnghinglovi was also examined as one of the plaintiff witness and in her examination-in-chief, she stated that she was running a cement shop in one of the building of the plaintiff which was adjacent to the house of the plaintiff. The building where she was running a shop was below the main building of the plaintiff and she used to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to the plaintiff as a rent. She stated that due to the blasting of rocks adjacent to the building of the plaintiff by the PWD for widening the road, huge cracks developed in the building of the plaintiff and it became uninhabitable and beyond repair. As the building became risky for occupation, the plaintiff vacated his house in the month of October 2003 and stayed in a rented house in the same locality till the later part of May, 2005. Likewise, she also vacated the house of the plaintiff which she had taken on rent and shifted to another rented house. She deposed that the plaintiff constructed a new Assam Type house by the side of the building which was damaged by the blasting done by the PWD. Likewise, she also vacated the house of the plaintiff which she had taken on rent and shifted to another rented house. She deposed that the plaintiff constructed a new Assam Type house by the side of the building which was damaged by the blasting done by the PWD. Although the said witness in her cross-examination stated that she did not know whether the cracks in the building of the plaintiff was caused due to the blasting and due to use of heavy machinery by the PWD, in her re-examination, she stated that she never saw the cracks before the blasting but only after the blasting was carried out by the PWD. 32. Mr. H. Lallianmawia, an employee of the PHED, the person who prepared the estimate for re-construction of the building of the plaintiff was also examined as one of the plaintiff witness. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the plaintiff came to their office and requested for making an estimate for re-construction of his building which was damage due to the widening of the Bawngkawn to Durtlang road because of the blasting of the rocky portion of the land by using explosives. He stated that he personally went to the spot and measured the areas of the damage house building and he prepared the estimate as per The PWD Schedule of Rates, 2003 (SOR 2003), which had since been increased to 18.86%. He stated that the estimate prepared by him was for the same size, quality and numbers of floors of the damaged house building of the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 19,06,732/-. He also prepared an estimate for a retaining wall to protect the building for an amount of Rs. 3,82,514/-. Further, for re-construction of the damaged house of the plaintiff, it will have to be dismantled and for which, he made an estimate of Rs. 50,000/-. Lastly, he also made an estimate of Rs. 2,65,518/- for re-construction of the Assam Type house of the plaintiff which was also damaged and thus the grand total of his estimate was Rs. 30,66,900/-. The said witness in his cross-examination stated that there was about 5 to 10 meters distance between the plaintiff''s house and the place of controlled blasting. Lastly, he also made an estimate of Rs. 2,65,518/- for re-construction of the Assam Type house of the plaintiff which was also damaged and thus the grand total of his estimate was Rs. 30,66,900/-. The said witness in his cross-examination stated that there was about 5 to 10 meters distance between the plaintiff''s house and the place of controlled blasting. There was also a house of concrete structure opposite to the plaintiff''s house and that he did not know as to whether any damage was caused to the said building due to the controlled blasting. 33. Shri. H. Lalbiakkima was examined as one of the plaintiff witness and in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that as requested by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, he was detailed to investigate the exact condition of the plaintiff''s house by the Geology & Mining Wing, along with another Geologist Junior. He stated that although the PWD used controlled blasting for cutting the road side, the Department also applied blasting without controlled system at the floor portion of the road. The shock which resulted because of the blasting might have produced breaking of cementing materials between the rock beds. He stated that he, along with Shri. F. Lalnuntluanga, Geologist Junior conducted investigation by visiting the site on 07.11.2003 and they found that cracks of about 21 ft length developed on the floor of the house with 1 inch width and smaller cracks developed on 05.11.2003 at the beam. The cracks were not there when they had conducted investigation on 24.10.2003. This clearly showed that the house site was affected and no longer safe for living with such condition. The said witness exhibited the technical report as Exhibit P-4 and the re-investigation report as Exhibit P-7. 34. Mr. H. Lalbiakkima, on being cross-examined, deposed that he was born and brought-up in Leitan, Durtlang and that he has no knowledge or degree in respect of blasting technology. He stated that the distance of the plaintiff''s house from the edge of the road prior to the widening and blasting was around 8 ft. There were around 2 (two) RCC buildings situated near the edge of the road besides the plaintiff''s building and he did not receive any report regarding damage to the said buildings due to the blasting. He stated that the distance of the plaintiff''s house from the edge of the road prior to the widening and blasting was around 8 ft. There were around 2 (two) RCC buildings situated near the edge of the road besides the plaintiff''s building and he did not receive any report regarding damage to the said buildings due to the blasting. He also deposed that he is a member of the YMA, Leitan, Durtlang Branch and the plaintiff approached him once regarding the cracks in his building and to which, he asked him to approach the Geology & Mining to verify the same. He denied the suggestion that the PWD did not do uncontrolled blasting and that he was around 30 meters away and the PWD did uncontrolled blasting. The said witness also stated that they did not do any testing of the soil within the plaintiff''s house or around the house. They saw cracks only in one room and not in the other rooms of the plaintiff''s house. 35. Mr. Sanghrina Chawngthu, who was arrayed as defendant No. 5 in the suit was examined as DW-1. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he was the Executive Engineer, Road North Division, PWD, Aizawl during the execution of the project of widening the road concerned. He stated that the blasting of the rock walls for widening the road was done under the supervision and guidance of the Central Mining Institute, Dhanbad. Scientist with modern equipments such as ground vibration monitoring instruments (seismograph) conducted controlled blasting to maintain ground vibrations, within permissible limit and to control fly rock as well as any kind of damage to any building in its closest proximity, which was witnessed by the people from the vicinity with genuine appreciation. He stated that JCB and Excavator were used for removing the stone boulders and loose earth and not for any other purpose as the controlled blasting was successful for the purpose of widening the road. He further deposed that DW-2 Shri. C. Sawmliana supervised and conducted controlled blasting and ground vibration was monitored from a distance of 2.5 meters from the blasting source, which was 3 meters from the plaintiff''s house. In other words, the blasting source was 5.50 meters from the plaintiff''s house. Blasting was done with the permission of the plaintiff himself and witnessed by the Village Council President of Durtlang Leitan. In other words, the blasting source was 5.50 meters from the plaintiff''s house. Blasting was done with the permission of the plaintiff himself and witnessed by the Village Council President of Durtlang Leitan. The ground vibration recorded from the residents of the plaintiff was 50.1 mm/sec, which cannot create any crack to the concrete wall or floor as well as any rock mass. In order to cause any crack on the soil, weathered or soft rock conditions, the PPV should be more than 70 mm/sec and for hard-rock condition, PPV should be more than 100 mm/sec. Therefore, ground vibration caused by the blasting near the residence of the plaintiff could not have caused crack or damage of any degree to the plaintiff''s house. He further deposed that the crack which according to the plaintiff had developed on the floor and the beam of his house, in fact, were already noticed even before any blasting was conducted. The same was witnessed by the Village Council President, Letitan, the plaintiff himself and the PWD Officers. The crack on the floor, in fact, was caused by shrinking of concrete and the crack in the beam due to inadequacy of stirrup sizes and spacing. He also stated that the blasting conducted at ground level was at a distance of 2.5 meters from the residence of Shri. Thangfala, which was just the opposite of the plaintiff''s house and that no damages were caused to his house. The said witness further deposed that he was totally unaware of the spot verification conducted by the Geologists and their findings as no information was given to him. He stated that the plaintiff never approached the PWD, Building Division for assessment to re-construct his house and that the SDO, PHE Department was not the authority to assess the building as relied upon by the plaintiff. On the other hand, from the assessment made by the Estate Officer, PWD, Bulding Division, it was only evident that the assessment made by SDO, PHE Department is imaginary and without any basis. It also did not contain any recommendation for re-construction of the plaintiff''s house. He also stated that he made a structural investigation of the plaintiff''s house, along with one Shri. Hrangthanga Zote, SDO, PWD Project Sub-division-I, which showed that the alleged cracks and damages were not caused by the blasting conducted by the PWD. It also did not contain any recommendation for re-construction of the plaintiff''s house. He also stated that he made a structural investigation of the plaintiff''s house, along with one Shri. Hrangthanga Zote, SDO, PWD Project Sub-division-I, which showed that the alleged cracks and damages were not caused by the blasting conducted by the PWD. While the process of widening the road was being carried out, the tenants of the plaintiff opened their shops regularly from morning to dusk every day. The plaintiff did not make any complaint with regard to the blasting and widening of the road at the relevant time and in fact, he himself used to sit on top of the JCB and take part in the cleaning up of the boulders and rocks on the road. The plaintiff also constructed a new building with RCC structure adjacent to the old building and which was bigger and larger than the old building. The plaintiff removed 3 (three) beams including the one in which cracks allegedly developed while he was still using the old columns. This clearly showed that the soil was stable for building and that the blasting did not have any adverse effect in the soil of the area. The said witness exhibited the Letter dated 09.12.2003 written by the then President of Leitan Village Council and the structure investigation report prepared by the DW-1 and one Shri. Hrangthanga Zote as Exhibit D-1 and D-2 respectively. The interim project report made by the DW-2 and one Shri. P. Pal Roy and the report dated 21.11.2003 prepared by the Estate Officer, PWD were exhibited as D- 3 and D-4 respectively. The photograph taken of the controlled blasting were exhibited as Exhibit D-5 and D-6. Shri. Sanghrina Chawngthu, in his cross-examination, reiterated what is stated in his examination-in-chief. He also stated that the blasting of the Leitan area was done in the month of July, August and September, 2003 and there were no blasting in the month of October, 2003. 36. Dr. C. Sawmliana was examined as DW-2 and in his examination-in- chief, he deposed that as requested by the E-in-C, PWD, Govt. of Mizoram, the blasting Department CIMFR, Dhanbad carried out scientific investigation for controlled blasting for safe and speedy excavation of rock at Durtlang Leitan. He along with Dr. 36. Dr. C. Sawmliana was examined as DW-2 and in his examination-in- chief, he deposed that as requested by the E-in-C, PWD, Govt. of Mizoram, the blasting Department CIMFR, Dhanbad carried out scientific investigation for controlled blasting for safe and speedy excavation of rock at Durtlang Leitan. He along with Dr. P. Pal Roy, Scientist ''F'' Head Blasting Department CMRI, Dhanbad were engaged for field investigation to establish blasting design patterns at Durtlang, Leitan in the project for widening of road from Bawngkawn to Durtlang Leitan. Field investigations were conducted during the period from September to 19th October, 2003 and during this period, more than 20 blastings were conducted and the consequent impacts were monitored to record the PPV. The said witness stated that he was present during the blasting at Leitan area by the PWD and that the same was a controlled blasting and done under the supervision of Dr. P. Pal Roy and himself. The vibration caused by the blasting was within the safe limit as per 1S6922 of 1973. He also deposed that ground vibration from a blast can be felt even at a distance of 1 km but however, it does not mean that the vibration is dangerous and having potential damage value to any structure. He further stated that if any damage of a structure is caused, the same will appear immediately after the blast within 5 (five) minutes and in the instant case, as per his knowledge, the plaintiff did not complain about any damage to his building at the time of blasting. He also stated that during the relevant time, no other person apart from Dr. P. Pal Roy and himself used any instrument to measure the controlled blasting. In his cross-examination, the said witness reiterated what is stated in his examination-in-chief. Besides that, he stated that the plaintiff''s building was the nearest building from the blast site and after the blasting was over, he entered the house of the plaintiff and he was shown by the plaintiff, the hairline crack in one of the beams in his house and the plaintiff said that the crack was due to blasting. He however denied the suggestion that the crack on the beam of the plaintiff''s building was due to the blasting. He however denied the suggestion that the crack on the beam of the plaintiff''s building was due to the blasting. On being re-examined by the counsel for the defendants, he stated that according to him, cracks occurred in the building during a blast where stress occurs i.e., in the corner of the room and not in the middle of the beam like the one he saw in the plaintiff''s building. He stated that he has conducted blasting in buildings all over India and what he said was from his experience and experiment. On being further examined by the counsel for the plaintiff, he stated that he cannot rule out the possibility of seepages to nearby area due to the blasting. That Mizoram comes under the Himalayan range and Geology of the rock portion can change even within 1 meter. 37. From a careful perusal of the evidence led by the parties and from the materials available on record, it appears that there was no immediate and direct impact on the building of the plaintiff due to the blasting carried out by the defendants. It may be noticed from the evidence of DW-2 that the plaintiff''s building was the nearest building from the blast site and after the blasting was over, he entered his house and was shown a hairline crack in one of the beam by the plaintiff. The plaintiff told him that the crack was due to the blasting. Further, the said witness also deposed that the possibility of seepages in nearby areas due to the blasting could not be ruled out. It is in evidence that the verification was done by the two Geologist Junior on 24.10.2003 and thereafter on 07.11.2003. Though the first verification did not reveal immediate damages to the building but on 07.11.2003, cracks were found to have developed on the floor and on the beam of the plaintiff''s house. The cracks developed on the floor of the house was about 21 ft in length and 1 inch in width. Therefore, in my considered view, there is nexus between the series of blasting conducted by the defendant PWD and the damage to the building of the plaintiff. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the principle of strict liability will be attracted. 38. In the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. Therefore, in my considered view, there is nexus between the series of blasting conducted by the defendant PWD and the damage to the building of the plaintiff. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the principle of strict liability will be attracted. 38. In the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (supra), the issue raised was whether the Railways would be liable to compensate the deceased, who fell down on the railway track while trying to enter the train and was then run over by the train. The Apex Court, by importing the principles of strict liability laid down by the British High Court in Rylands vs. Fletcher,1866 1 Ex 265 LR held that the contention of the Railways that the deceased was not inside the train when she fell off from the train and was therefore, not eligible to be awarded any compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 could not be accepted as it would not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train as in either case, it amounted to an accidental falling of passenger from a train carrying passenger. Therefore, it was an "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways was liable to pay compensation. The relevant portion of the Apex Court decision may be gainfully abstracted herein below:- wxyz "21. Rylands v. Fletcher in fact created a new legal principle (the principle of strict liability in the case of hazardous activities), though professing to be based on analogies drawn from existing law. The judgment is noteworthy because it is an outstanding example of a creative generalization. As Wigmore writes, this epoch-making judgment owes much of its strength to "the broad scope of the principle announced, the strength of conviction of its expounder, and the clarity of his exposition. zyxw wxyz 22. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendant''s activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 247). There are many activities which are so hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of another. zyxw wxyz 22. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendant''s activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 247). There are many activities which are so hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of another. The principle of strict liability states that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. As Fleming says "permission to conduct such activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes, as an appropriate item of its overheads" (see Fleming on Torts, 6th Edn., p. 302). zyxw wxyz 23. Thus, in cases where the principle of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault. zyxw wxyz 24. The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is twofold:(i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the risk of damage that their activities generate, and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity (usually a corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 267). Page 38 of 45 zyxw wxyz 25. As pointed out by Clerk and Lindsell (see Torts, 14th Edn.): zyxw wxyz "The fault principle has shortcomings. The very idea suggests that compensation is a form of punishment for wrongdoing, which not only has the tendency to make tort overlap with criminal law, but also and more regrettably, implies that a wrongdoer should only be answerable to the extent of his fault. This is unjust when a wholly innocent victim sustains catastrophic harm through some trivial fault, and is left virtually without compensation." zyxw wxyz 26. Many jurists applaud liability without fault as a method for imposing losses on superior risk bearers. Their argument is that one who should know that his activity, even though carefully prosecuted, may harm others, and should treat this harm as a cost of his activity. Many jurists applaud liability without fault as a method for imposing losses on superior risk bearers. Their argument is that one who should know that his activity, even though carefully prosecuted, may harm others, and should treat this harm as a cost of his activity. This cost item will influence pricing, and will be passed on to consumers spread so widely that no one will be seriously effected (vide article by Prof. Clarence Morris entitled "Hazardous Enterprises and Risk Bearing Capacity" published in Yale Law Journal, 1952, p. 1172). zyxw wxyz 27. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher13 was subsequently interpreted to cover a variety of things likely to do mischief on escape, irrespective of whether they were dangerous per se e.g. water, electricity, explosions, oil, noxious fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation, a flagpole, etc. (see Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 13th Edn., p. 425) vide National Telephone Co. vs. Baker14 , Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. Ltd. v. Cape Town Tramways Co. Ltd.15, Hillier v. Air Ministry16, etc. In America, the rule was adapted and expressed in the following words "one who carried on an ultra-hazardous activity is liable to another whose person, land or chattels the actor should recognize as likely to be harmed by the unpreventable miscarriage of the activity for harm resulting thereto from that which makes the activity ultra- hazardous, although the utmost care is exercised to prevent the harm" (vide Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol.3, p. 41). zyxw wxyz 28. Rylands v. Fletcher13 gave English law one of its most creative generalizations which, for a long time, looked destined to have a successful future. Yet, after a welcome start given to it by Victorian Judges the rule was progressively emasculated, until subsequently it almost became obsolete in England. According to Dias and Markesinis (See. Court Law, 2nd Edn. Page 355) one reason for this may well be that as a generalization justifying a shift from fault to strict liability it may have come prematurely. The 19th century had not yet fully got over laissez-faire, and it was only in the 20th century that the concepts of social justice and social security, as integral parts of the general theory of the Welfare State, were firmly established. zyxw wxyz 29. The 19th century had not yet fully got over laissez-faire, and it was only in the 20th century that the concepts of social justice and social security, as integral parts of the general theory of the Welfare State, were firmly established. zyxw wxyz 29. As already mentioned above, the rule of strict liability laid down by Blackburn, J. in Rylands v. Fletcher12 was restricted in appeal13 by Lord Cairns to non-natural users, the word "natural" meaning "that which exists in or by nature, and is not artificial", and that was the sense in which it was used by Lord Cairns. However, later it acquired an entirely different meaning i.e. that which is ordinary and usual, even though it may be artificial vide Rickards v. Lothian17 followed in Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd.18 Thus, the expression "non-natural" was later interpreted to mean "abnormal", and since in an industrial society industries can certainly not be called "abnormal" the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was totally emasculated in these subsequent rulings. Such an interpretation, as Prof. Newark writes, "would have surprised Lord Cairns and astounded Blackburn, J. (see article entitled "Non-natural User and Rylands v. Fletcher", published in Modern Law Review, 1961, Vol. 24, p.557). zyxw wxyz 30. In Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd.18 which was a case of injury due to a shell explosion in an ammunitions factory, Lord Macmillan while rejecting the claim of the plaintiff made further restrictions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher by holding that the rule "derives from a conception of mutual duties of neighbouring landowners", and was therefore inapplicable to personal injuries. He also held that to make the defendant liable there should be escape from a place under the defendant''s control and occupation to a place outside his occupation, and since the plaintiff was within the premises at the time of the accident the injury was not due to escape therefrom. In this way Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd.18 destroyed the very spirit of the decision in Rylands v. Fletcher by restricting its principle to the facts of that particular case, instead of seeing its underlying juristic philosophy. zyxw wxyz 31. In this way Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd.18 destroyed the very spirit of the decision in Rylands v. Fletcher by restricting its principle to the facts of that particular case, instead of seeing its underlying juristic philosophy. zyxw wxyz 31. Apart from the above, some other exceptions carved out to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher are: (a) consent of the plaintiff; (b) common benefit; (c) act of stranger; (d) act of God; (e) statutory authority; (f) default of the plaintiff, etc. zyxw wxyz 37. In India the landmark Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India22 has gone much further than Rylands v. Fletcher13 in imposing strict liability. The Court observed: (M.C. Mehta case22, SCC p. 421, para 31) zyxw wxyz "31. . If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads." zyxw wxyz 38. The Court also observed that this strict liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. zyxw wxyz 39. The decision in M.C. Mehta case22 related to a concern working for private profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the Railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit. zyxw wxyz 40. It is true that attempts to apply the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher against public bodies have not on the whole succeeded vide Administrative Law by P.P. Craig, 2nd Edn., p. 446, mainly because of the idea that a body which acts not for its own profit but for the benefit of the community should not be liable. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is because such public bodies benefit the community that it is unfair to leave the result of a non- negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally." zyxw 39. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is because such public bodies benefit the community that it is unfair to leave the result of a non- negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally." zyxw 39. From the above abstract, it may be seen that the principles of strict liability focuses on the nature of the activity of the defendant rather than the negligence. In other words, the undertakers of the hazardous activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. Applying the said principle to the present case, I am of the considered views that the defendants in view of their activity of blasting the rocks and soil while widening the road concerned would only be responsible for the damages caused to the building of the plaintiff. The principle of strict liability enunciated in the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher were also referred to and relied upon by the Apex Court in Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai (supra). Although the facts in that case were different, the principles of strict liability as held in Rylands (supra) was taken into consideration. Besides this, the Apex Court took into the consideration the un-rebutted damages caused to the land of the appellants and was of the view that even in absence of any evidence to show the actual cost of each tree in the given facts, the appellants would still be entitled to reasonable compensation once the factum of suffering loss stands proved. The relevant portion of the Apex Court decision may be gainfully abstracted below:- wxyz "29. This brings us to the question of quantum of damages. No doubt, actual/exact proof of damage is not given by the appellants. At the same time, we find that the trial court had appointed Court Commissioners to verify the position of agricultural lands of the appellants. The said Court Commissioners, also known as panchas, had visited the site and submitted their report for inspection confirming the loss suffered by the appellants due to submergence of the agricultural fields of the appellants. At the same time, we find that the trial court had appointed Court Commissioners to verify the position of agricultural lands of the appellants. The said Court Commissioners, also known as panchas, had visited the site and submitted their report for inspection confirming the loss suffered by the appellants due to submergence of the agricultural fields of the appellants. In this report, they specifically pointed out that as many as 1500 boar trees were uprooted and washed away as a result of the release of water from the dam which flooded the fields of the appellants. Several photographs were also annexed along with the report to support the aforesaid conclusion. This kind of evidence, which went unrebutted, proves that the appellants have, in fact, suffered damages. No doubt, the appellants have not led any evidence to show actual cost of each tree, in order to arrive at the precise quantum of damages. However, even in the absence of such an evidence showing exact loss suffered, the appellants would still be entitled to reasonable compensation once factum of suffering loss stands proved. Where a wrong has been committed, the wrongdoer must suffer from the impossibility of accurately ascertaining the amount of damages. Likewise, the party claiming compensation must give the best evidence to prove damages. In the instant case, we find that the loss is not only on account of rain, though a part thereof can be attributed to Nature, but also due to the negligence on the part of the respondent Authorities in not taking due precautions in time which could have avoided some loss/damage, if not entirely. If damage has resulted from two or three causes, namely, from an act of God as well as a negligent act of a party, the award of damages can be apportioned to compensate only the injury that can be attributed to the negligent act of the respondents.(See Workman v. Great Northern Railway Co.14) zyxw 40. Coming back to the instant appeals, as already noticed, the plaintiffs have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation in tune with the assessment made by an Engineer from the PHE Department, who was also one of the plaintiff''s witnesses. The defendants, on the other hand, have challenged the judgment & order of the Court below questioning the award of compensation to the plaintiff. The defendants, on the other hand, have challenged the judgment & order of the Court below questioning the award of compensation to the plaintiff. This Court has already held as can be seen from the foregoing paragraphs that the damages caused to the building of the plaintiff is attributable to the construction of work carried out by the defendants by adopting the principles of strict liability. The Court below had also come to a finding that from the investigations held on 24.10.2003 and thereafter, on 07.11.2003, it was revealed that there was no sudden effect but due to the close proximity of the building of the plaintiff from the blasting conducted by the defendants, the same was the reason for causing of cracks in the floor and beams of the plaintiff''s building. The Court below also took into consideration, the quality of the building materials and the mode of construction of the building of the plaintiff and therefore, decided to award compensation to the plaintiff as assessed by DW-2 after finding the amount claimed by the plaintiff to be highly excessive. Besides the assessment of DW-2, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded for the purpose of dismantling the damage building of the plaintiff with other cost. 41. On an overall consideration of the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case, I find the same to be only justified. The estimate for re-construction of RCC building including retaining wall etc., as prepared by Sh. H. Lallianmawia (Ext. P-5) was rightly found to be exaggerated by the Trial Court and not accepted. Thus, I find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment & order and the decree drawn. In the result, I find no merit in both the appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. wxyz Send back the LCRs. zyxw