India News | Fire Tragedy:SC Requests HC CJ to Entrust Work of Determination of Compensation to Judicial Officer

New Delhi, Apr 12 (PTI) The Supreme Court Tuesday requested the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court to entrust the work of determination of compensation, payable to victims of the April 2006 fire tragedy at Meerut in which 65 persons had died and 161 were injured, to a judicial officer.

The apex court, while observing that report of the court-appointed one-man commission which apportioned the liability between the organizers and the state as 60:40 is “not suffering from any infirmity”, said the high court shall provide all necessary infrastructure to enable the judicial officer to discharge his duties.

Also Read | JNU Clash: Education Ministry Seeks Report from University, Students’ Union Demands Judicial Probe.

The top court passed its judgement on a plea preferred by the victims of the fire tragedy, which occurred on April 10, 2006, in a show organised at Meerut.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian said that amount of compensation payable to each of the victim, including the families of the deceased, have not been computed and is required to be computed in accordance with the principles of “just compensation” as in the case of an accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

Also Read | Oppo F21 Pro 5G, Oppo F21 Pro & Oppo Enco Air 2 Pro Launched in India.

“We, therefore, request the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to entrust the work of determination of compensation to a judicial officer in the rank of District Judge/Additional District Judge at Meerut within two weeks of the order of this court to work exclusively on the question of determination of the compensation on a day-to-day basis,” the bench said in its 52-page verdict.

It said the nominated judicial officer may permit the parties to lead such evidence as may be permissible.

“We hope that the nominated judicial officer shall calculate the amount of compensation and forward the report to this court for consideration in respect of compensation in accordance with the law,” the bench said and posted the matter after four months.

The apex court noted that the amount paid by the state and a sum of Rs 30 lakhs deposited by the organisers has been disbursed to the victims.

It observed that the said amount, excluding the ex-gratia payments made, be taken into consideration while the determination of the amount payable by the organisers and the state.

The bench noted that Uttar Pradesh had appointed a retired judge in terms of provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 in June 2006 and the commission had submitted its report in June 2007.

It noted the report was not found to be sustainable and the apex court, while rejecting the proceedings conducted by the commission under the Inquiry Act, had appointed Justice (retired) S B Sinha as a one-man commission which submitted its report in June 2015.

“In terms of the order passed, as mentioned above, the Commission has submitted its report and apportioned the liability between the organisers and the state as 60:40. No dispute was raised regarding the percentage of liability determined by any of the party to the present proceedings,” the bench said.

It noted that in terms of the order of the apex court, the state has paid Rs five lakh each to the deceased, Rs two lakh each to the victims suffering serious injuries, and Rs 75,000 each to the victims suffering minor injuries, apart from the amount paid by the Centre.

It observed that an amount of Rs 30 lakh deposited by the organisers in terms of the July 2014 order was earlier sent to the district judge, Meerut, for pro-rata distribution amongst the victims.

The bench said the appointment of the court commissioner was to substitute the commissioner appointed under the Commission of Inquiry Act, but under the Act, the court could not appoint a commissioner.

“Such power is conferred only on the executive and the legislature. Thus, the jurisdiction exercised in appointing Justice S B Sinha (retd.) was vested with this court under Article 142 of the Constitution. It was a court commissioner to find out the factual positions on the questions of reference,” it said.

The bench noted that counsel appearing for the organisers had raised preliminary objection about the entertainment of the writ petition in respect of the “private law liability” of the organizers and contended that such liability does not fall within the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution.

Referring to several previous judgements, including the verdict in the Uphaar fire tragedy, it said that precedents for payment of compensation in a writ petition under Article 32 fall under three categories of cases.

The top court said the first category is where the acts of commission or omission are attributed to the state or its officers.

It said the second category is where compensation has been awarded against a corporate entity which is engaged in an activity having the potential to affect the life and health of people and the third category comprises cases where the liability for payment of compensation has been apportioned between the state and the organizers of the function.

The bench said having collected the entry fee, it was the responsibility of the organizers to ensure the safety and well-being of visitors.

“The organizers have failed in that duty causing loss of life of the innocent victims who came to see the exhibition, which was purely a commercial event with an intention to earn profit by the organizers,” it noted.

The bench said the court commissioner has rightly fixed the liability on the organizers to the extent of 60 per cent, and on account of negligence in performing statutory duties by the officers of the state, the state has been burdened with 40 per cent of the total liability.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)