Fire not an 'act of God' if no external natural force involved: SC

A three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar made the observation while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order which had termed the fire in the warehouse of a company as an 'act of God'

Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India | File photo
Press Trust of India New Delhi
3 min read Last Updated : Jan 08 2022 | 2:18 PM IST

A fire accident cannot be termed as an 'act of God' if it did not happen due to the operation of any external natural forces like storm, floods, lightning or earthquake, the Supreme Court has said.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar made the observation while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order which had termed the fire in the warehouse of a company as an act of God' and exempted excise liability of the company engaged in the manufacture of liquor.

The present one had not been a case where anything related with the forces of nature like storm, floods, lightning or earthquake had been in operation or caused the fire.

When nothing of any external natural force had been in operation in violent or sudden manner, the event of the fire in question could be referable to anything but to an act of God in legal parlance, the bench also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari said.

The top court also said the fire in question had not taken place due to any mischief by any person.

Noticeably, the fire that started around 12:55 pm on April 10, 2003 could be brought under control by the firefighters only by 5 am the next day.

When all the relevant factors are cumulatively taken into account, we find it difficult to accept that the fire and the resultant loss had been beyond the control of human agency so as to be termed as inevitable accident, the bench said.

The top court said the fire had not generated on its own and with appropriately laid fire proof electrical installations as also firefighting measures, the incident was an avoidable one or at least the loss could have been minimised.

It said the observations of the high court in this regard do not appear sound and are required to be disapproved.

The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh Excise Department challenging an order of the high court which quashed the demand raised against McDowell company towards loss of excise revenue because of destruction of liquor in fire.

The high court had said the order passed by the excise commissioner seeking Rs 6.39 crore as excise revenue was based on conjectures and without any cogent evidence about negligence on the part of the company and that the incident was nothing but an act of God.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Fire accidentSupreme Court

First Published: Jan 08 2022 | 2:18 PM IST

Next Story