Read the following passage and answer the questions.
The strict principle of law is: sics utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; it means, everyone must so use his own as not to do damage to another. When this maxim is applied to landed property, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only that he has sustained damage but also that the defendant has caused it by going beyond what is necessary in order to enable him to have the natural use of his own land.
The owner or occupier of the land may lawfully use it for any purpose for which it might, in the ordinary course of the employment of land, be used. And for such natural uses of land, an owner will not, in the absence of negligence, be liable, though damage results to the neighbor. But, for any non-natural user, such as the introduction to the land of something which, in the natural condition of the
land, is not upon it, he is liable if damage results to his neighbour. A person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in and at his peril; and if he does so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (also known as "the wild beast theory”. Indian Law: It has been held in several cases that the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher applies in India.
Question: The Bio Gas plant with advanced safety measures was installed for town residents but due to increasing weather and lack of rain the vessels had leakages and the gas had escaped from a rupture and affected the crops in nearby fields. The farmers filed suit for damages-
Biogas plant cannot be held liable for the crop loss because the plant took adequate care and precaution
Biogas plant cannot be held liable because the installation was not for their own benefit but for the benefit of town residents
Biogas plant will be held liable to pay damages because of the strict liability rule
Both (b) and (c)
Here, in Dunne v. North West Gas Board case, the plaintiffs brought an action against the Board after the gas had escaped from a rupture in the water main leading to five different casualties. The defendant was not held liable as it was a consented act and the Board had not accumulated the substance for its own benefit but for the benefit of the residents.