Read Time: 10 minutes

In a plea filed by kin of the victims of the 2006 Meerut fire tragedy seeking compensation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed 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 to work exclusively on the question of determination of the compensation on a day-to-day basis.

The High Court has been further directed to provide all necessary infrastructure to enable the Officer to discharge his duties. The nominated Judicial Officer may also 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 law", ordered the Top Court.

A fire tragedy occurred on 10th April, 2006 at about 5:40 pm, on the last day of the India Brand Consumer Show organized at Victoria Park, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh by Mrinal Events and Expositions ("Organizers"). This incident claimed lives of 65 persons and left 161 or more with burn injuries.

The instant plea was filed in 2006 by a person named Sanjay Gupta who had lost five members of his family in the event. The plea was filed on the ground that the investigation into the tragedy was not conducted properly by the State. The then Uttar Pradesh government had appointed a one man commission consisting of Justice (retired) OP Garg of Allahabad High Court. However, the findings of the report were contested by the organisers on the ground that they were not heard.

The Supreme Court then, by an order dated 31st July 2014, appointed Justice (retired) SB Sinha as a one-man commission to inquire into the matter. By the same order, Court had directed the State to pay Rs. 5 lakhs each to the legal representatives of the deceased and the Rs. 2 lakhs each to those who were seriously injured and the Rs.75,000 to those who suffered minor injuries.

In March, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian had reserved its judgment in the case. The case was reserved for judgement after 16 years.

Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv and former law minister had appeared before the division bench, representing Mrinal Event Managing Company, and argued against fixation of any liability on the company. He submitted that the organisers of the event were taken to Mumbai and Delhi to see the work and were then awarded the contract to air-condition and put up structures for the exhibition.

Referring to the order passed by the Supreme Court directing the event organisers to deposit a sum of Rs.30 lakhs, he said,
“How much will they have to suffer? They have already suffered enough.”

The top court while relying on Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005 held that the organizers were occupiers within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the said Act.

"The Organisers have not applied for permission under the said Act nor had the nominated authority caused the inspection, therefore, the Organizers and the State have been rightly saddled with liability for not taking precautions as mandated by the statute", held the top court.

Furthermore, noting that a contractor was working on behalf of the organizers in terms of the work order issued by them, the bench held that whatsoever may be the relationship between the two, the organizers could not be absolutely absolved of their liability.

"The victims or their families visited exhibition on the invitation of the Organizers and not that of the Contractor. The Organizers were supposed to make arrangements for putting up the exhibition hall, providing electricity and water and also the food stalls for the facility of the victims/visitors. They cannot now take shelter on the ground that the Contractor who was given work order on 9.3.2006 was an independent contractor and the victims should seek remedy from him," Court said.

Accordingly, Court was of the view that the amount of compensation payable to each of the victims including the families of the deceased was 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.

Thus, while asking the High Court to appoint a Judicial Officer to compute the compensation so payable, Court added that amount paid by the State and a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs deposited by the organizers which has been disbursed to the victims, excluding the ex-gratia payments made, be taken into consideration while determination of the amount payable by the organizers and the State.

The case will now be heard after four months.

Case Title: Sanjay Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh