HC orders panel to probe collapse

The directions of Justice F I Rebello 8212; which he has stayed for a period of four weeks 8212; came in a suit filed by Cavery Software Engineering Systems Ltd claiming damages to the tune of Rs 64 crore against Wockhardt and Stanchart Ltd accusing them of 8220;tampering with the structure of the building8221; which collapsed in 1997.

Cavery Software, which had its office on the third floor of the building has charged that the wilful structural changes 8212; cutting the pillars and columns of the building 8212; which according to them caused the collapse haddestroyed their valuable assets like equipment, tools, and software, apart from records, documents, computers and other machinery.

While Stanchart Ltd had its office in the basement, Wockhardt had its office in the fifth floor of the seven-storeyed building. Seventeen people had died and over 50 injured in the collapse.

The BMC had appointed a two-member commission of enquiry on the day of the collapse headed by structural engineer Satish Dhupelia and including Sailesh Mahimtura. The commission which submitted its report to the corporation in December 1997 said that the building was in a poor state of maintainence and suspected that alterations to the structure could have accelerated its collapse.

The plaintiffs had moved a chamber summons in their suit recently since they had found workers putting up barricades around the side of the 8220;Poonam Chambers B wing8221; to carry out the work of the demolition of the remaining part of the building to facilitate reconstruction. Apprehensive that the existing RCCskeleton and pillars and beams of the building, which still stands and could offer substantial evidence of their charges, the plaintiffs had moved an urgent application. An ad interim order for a status quo on the building had already been granted.

The plaintiffs through their counsel M M Sakhardande had contended that the evidence in this rubble was relevant for proving the 8220;tortuous and negligent actions of the defendants.8221; It was argued that if the demolition was allowed to be carried out, the only evidence to prove charges of negligence would be defeated. The plaintiffs then prayed for a commission to look into the remaining structure.

The contentions and prayers of the plaintiffs were hotly contested by the defendants who argued that an expert committee instituted by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation BMC had gone into the collapse and had not found anybody culpable. Counsel Viraj Tulzapurkar argued the question of appointment of a commission does not arise since the plaintiffs had alreadymentioned the various acts committed by the defendants in their suit and it was their responsibility to prove it. They also argued that this suit was an act to prevent the co-operative society from putting up a new building at the site.

In his order, Justice Rebello held that even if it was true that an expert committee report had been submitted on the collapse by the local authority, 8220;what is material is to note is that the committee was appointed to find out if there was any culpability of any persons for the purpose of taking action against them.8221; 8220;To my mind even if there is any culpability in an action for damages, the plaintiffs can independently show that even if the acts would not amount to culpable acts, nevertheless they are entitled for compensation for wrong done to the property,8221; Justice Rebello has noted in his order.

Holding that the cooperative society cannot be prevented from putting up the construction, the court accepted that the evidence at the site had to be removed. 8220;It wouldthen be in the interests of justice to have the material before the court to find out the tortuous and negligent acts as pleaded by the plaintiffs,8221; the order says, adding, 8220;the need for appointing a commissioner has much relevance in this aspect.8221;

The court then directed the Prothonotary and senior master of the High Court to appoint a commission of three persons, civil engineers experts and/or RCC specialists from the list of architects on the panel of the High Court. The commission is to submit its report within a period of eight weeks from the date of appointment.

The order has clarified that the commission is to 8220;inspect the structure as it exists today and submit its report as to the structure, load and other aspects considering the pleadings of the plaintiffs.8221; The commission, the order adds, is not authorised to examine any persons or individuals.

Since the defendants then pleaded for a stay on the order, the directions on the appointment of the commission have been stayed for a period offour weeks.