Awarding Punishment In Departmental Enquiry Doesn’t Absolve From Paying Compensation: Bombay High Court Directs MMC To Pay ₹50L Each To Victims’ Family In 2015 Fire Incident
The Bombay High Court enunciated that if a breach of statutory duties by a public authority has led to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, then compensation can and ought to be awarded in a Writ Petition.
Justice B.P. Colabawalla, Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has directed the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) to pay Rs. 50 lakhs each to the family of the victims who died in a fire incident that happened in the year 2015.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed against the Order passed by the Lokayukta, Maharashtra State.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held, “Respondent No.2 has submitted that in the Departmental Enquiry held by it, two Sanitary Inspectors were given appropriate punishment, and, for this reason also, Respondent No.2 should not be held liable for payment of any compensation. In our view, awarding punishment in a Departmental Enquiry to certain officers does not absolve Respondent No.2 from paying compensation to the Petitioners for the violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners and their children/ husband under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in our view, this argument of Respondent No.2 is stated only to be rejected.”
The Bench enunciated that if a breach of statutory duties by a public authority has led to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, then compensation can and ought to be awarded in a Writ Petition.
Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer represented the Petitioners while Senior Advocate A.Y. Sakhare, Advocates S.R. Page, and Vighnesh Kamat represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
On October 16, 2015, 8 young adults visited a restaurant named Hotel City Kinara for lunch at 1:00 p.m. They were made to sit on a table in the loft area/ mezzanine floor of Kinara where food was served to them. At about 1:20 p.m. a fire broke out in the loft area/mezzanine floor and the Fire Brigade came at around 1:36 p.m. However, tragically all 8 young adults lost their lives. The Petitioners were their parents/widow. On August 28, 2016, a Complaint was filed before the Lokayukta, Maharashtra State, seeking directions for investigation into the fire incident and compensation to the families of the 8 young adults.
But the said Complaint was dismissed by Lokayukta. As far as the claim for compensation was concerned, it was recorded that, during the course of hearing, it had transpired that compensation had already been ordered to be paid to the families of the deceased persons who died due to the accidental fire at Kinara. It was also recorded that the compensation amount had already been credited to the account of the Tahsildar, Kurla, who had been directed to take further steps. In view thereof, the Lokayukta did not grant any compensation. Being aggrieved by the Lokayukta’s Order, the Petitioners filed the Petition before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “… it is clear that the question, as to whether the law imposes a strict liability on the public authorities and their officials primarily depends upon the purpose and object of the legislation as well. When activities are hazardous and are inherently dangerous, the statute expects the highest degree of care, and if some one is injured because of such activities, the State and its officials are liable even if they could establish that there was no negligence and that it was not intentional. Public safety legislations generally fall in that category of breach of statutory duty by a public authority.”
The Court emphasised that to decide whether the breach is actionable, the Court must generally look at the statute and its provisions and determine whether the legislature, in its wisdom, intended to give rise to a cause of action in damages and whether the claimant is intended to be protected.
“In our view, in the face of the said egregious violations by Kinara, Respondent No.2 was bound to take steps under Section 479 (3) of the MMC Act, which empowers Respondent No.2 to revoke or suspend the license granted under the MMC Act if any of its restrictions or conditions are infringed or violated”, it said.
The Court was of the view that there was gross negligence on the part of MMC in the discharge of its duties.
“… in our view, the negligence and breach of statutory duties by Respondent No.2 is a proximate cause of the fire and Respondent No.2 can be held vicariously liable for the acts of commission and omission of its officials”, it added.
The Court further reiterated that where there is a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by a public authority, the Court has the power to direct the wrongdoers to compensate the victims.
“In our view, in the present case, Respondent No.2, by committing gross breach of its statutory duties, has violated the fundamental rights of the Petitioners and their children/ husband under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, in our view, Respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the various judgements referred to by us herein above”, it noted.
The Court also took note of the fact that since the students were studying Engineering (IT) or Mass Media, and one was employed at Sterling Engineering Consultants, it would be safe to presume that, during their whole working life, they would earn a good salary.
“… all these persons had dependents, only few of whom were working. The wife of Arvind Kanaujia and the parents of the other victims would thus have relied upon the victims for their maintenance and upkeeping. Keeping all these factors in mind, in our view, in respect of each victim, compensation of atleast Rs.30 lakhs would be payable in 2015. Considering inflation and the interest that the said sum of Rs. 30 lakhs would have earned over the period of 10 years, the compensation payable to each of the Petitioners, in 2025, would be Rs. 50 lakhs”, it held.
Conclusion
The Court, therefore, came to a finding that MMC would be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to each of the Petitioners.
“In our view, any steps that may have been taken by Respondent No.2 after the incident cannot absolve Respondent No.2 of its liabilities. Further, the alleged strain on public funds also cannot be a ground to absolve Respondent No.2 of its liability. At the cost of repetition, we would like to reiterate that Respondent No.2, by not taking action against Kinara, despite being aware of serious breaches committed by Kinara of the license conditions, committed a breach of its statutory duties”, it remarked.
The Court added that such a breach of statutory duties on the part of MMC is the direct and proximate cause of the incident of fire at Kinara. It further said that if MMC had performed its statutory duties, the fire at Kinara would not have taken place.
“Further, in any case, the said Order of the Lokayukta, Maharashtra State, cannot prevent this Court from considering, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whether any compensation is payable to the Petitioners by Respondent No.2”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, quashed the Lokayukta’s Order, and directed MMC to pay compensation within 12 weeks.
Cause Title- Rekha P. Thapar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8463-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer, Advocates Hasmit Trivedi, Mehek Shah, and Jayesh Mestry.
Respondents: Senior Advocate A.Y. Sakhare, GP Purnima H. Kantharia, Addl. GP Abhay L. Patki, Advocates S.R. Page, Vighnesh Kamat, Yashodeep Deshmukh, Jyoti Mhatre, Anuja Tirmali, Komal Punjabi, Eesha Jaifalkar, Archana Joglekar, and Satish Kamat.
