The Madras High Court Bench here on Wednesday directed the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs. 54 lakh, under Victim Compensation Scheme, at the rate of Rs. 3 lakh each to the families of nine people who died due to asphyxiation in a scan centre following a fire accident in a fireworks shop in Sivakasi on Thursday last and nine others who had died in a similar accident in a fireworks unit in Thanjavur district in November 2013.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran passed the orders on a news report that appeared in The Hindu , on the Sivakasi incident, treated as a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) petition and another PIL petition seeking compensation for the families of the victims of the 2013 incident on the ground that they had not been paid even a single pie as compensation till date though four of the 10 who died then were children.
Since one of the 10 victims was the daughter-in-law of the owner of the fireworks unit, the judges said no compensation need to be paid for her death alone whereas the families of all others should be compensated as ordered by the court without prejudice to their right to claim a higher compensation through an appropriate forum. The amount should be paid to the families of all the 18 victims before November 25, the Bench ordered.
ADVERTISEMENT
Passing interim orders on yet another PIL petition related to establishment of fireworks shops inside shopping malls and precarious locations in Tiruchi city, the judges expressed dissatisfaction over the action taken by the district administration and the police against such shops and directed the officials to ensure that such shops maintained the mandatory safety distance from public places and did not indulge in unauthorised sale of crackers.
Though the Tiruchi Commissioner of Police, in his counter affidavit, had stated that he had issued 97 licences to fireworks shops in the last four days on receipt of reports from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Assistant Commissioner of Police, Inspector of Police, District Fire Officer and police officials in-charge of traffic, DCP A. Mayilvahanan told the judges that he had only forwarded the Inspector’s report and did not submit any independent report to the CoP. Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said: “You are not supposed to act as a post office by simply forwarding the Inspector’s report to the Commissioner. You should have also inspected the spots and submitted an independent report.” The DCP replied he had inspected some shops and submitted photographs to show that some minor deficiencies found in those shops had been ordered to be rectified. The judges found that some of the shops had been located very close to public places such as hospitals, banks and marriage halls. When questioned, a Special Government Pleader said there were certain “practical difficulties” in following the distance rule strictly. “There will be practical difficulties in preventing murders too. Does that mean you will allow people to kill each other?” the judge asked before adjourning the case till November 7.