Bridge collapse case : Morbi civic body can’t say unaware of bridge reopening, says govt

Meanwhile, the state government through Advocate General Kamal Trivedi informed the court that the state is likely to come out with a policy by the end of the first week of March and pending the formulation of the final policy, the urban development department (UDD) has adopted the broad policy followed by the roads and buildng (R&B) department of the state.

According to the state, there are total of 461 bridges under the UDD and 1,441 bridges under the R&B department.

According to the state, of the 461 bridges, 40 are major bridges that require repair, 23 are minor bridges that require repair, while 398 are fit for use as on date.

“We sensitised local bodies to see that they have technical in-house expert and if they don’t, retain outside agency as consultants and during the finalisation of the policy nothing untoward happens. That’s how we found that out of 461 bridges, 398 are fit for use as on date. 40 major bridges require repair and 23 minor bridges require repair…This is a measure that has been adopted during the pendency of the formulation of final policy so that in the interregnum, things are taken care of,” AG Trivedi added.

Meanwhile the bench expressed its dissatisfaction at the compensation amount proposed by the Oreva Group for the 135 deceased as well as those injured.

Senior counel Nirupam Nanavaty, representing the company, submitted before the court that it has proposed to pay Rs 3.5 lakh to the next of kin per deceased person and Rs 1 lakh for those who suffered injuries.

The bench however remarked that the same “doesn’t appear to be anywhere at all nearer to ‘just compensation’.”
Nanavaty however clarified that this is only an ad-hoc amount that they are proposing. The court further inquired as to how much final compensation the company intends to pay, to which Nanavaty submitted that he does not have instructions from his client in this regard as the CMD of the company (Jaysukh Patel) is in jail at present.

“CMD is in jail, this is family company, so now wife, sister are directors and they are in distress and they are saying let us prepare for bail.” Justice Gokani however responded, “If they are directors, they can always (take the call), gender does not matter.”

The court has posted the matter of hearing on Wednesday, with instructions to Nanavaty to take requisite instructions as to how much the company plans to pay as final compensation.

Meanwhile, a next of kin of two of the deceased, Dilip Chavda, represented by advocate Rahul Sharma, argued for higher amount of compensation and submitted that the “negligence is attributable to both the private party and the state”, and thus the compensation payable would be follow a principle similar to that awarded to the 59 deceased in the Uphaar Cinema tragedy.

Sharma relied on judgments pertaining to Bhopal Gas tragedy caused by Union Carbide, and Uphaar Cinema, and added that compensation in line with the Sarla Verma case, which was pertaining to compensation in a case of motor vehicle accident, would not apply in this case.

Sharma’s argument was also supported by the amicus curiae in the case Shikha Panchal, who further submitted that the amicus curiae are in the process of drawing up comparisons and formulating a compensation amount that would be just and fair, while taking into account court-laid precedents.