Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3324 (ALL)

Keshav Singh Azad v. State of U. P.

2015-10-26

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT An accident took place on 27 September 2014 at Village Sonaideeh, Rasra, District Ballia. It has been stated that an oil tanker which had been engaged by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited1 on a contract basis turned turtle as a result of which thirteen persons died and six were injured. The petition was filed in the public interest for a mandamus to the authorities of the State and to IOCL to make an inquiry so that adequate compensation is paid to the heirs of the deceased as well as to those who are injured. 2. In pursuance of an order which was passed on 31 March 2015, a counter affidavit was filed by the District Magistrate. While taking note of the affidavit of the District Magistrate, this Court in its order dated 19 May 2015 took cognizance of the admission that as many as thirteen people had died due to burn injuries and six persons were injured in the accident which took place in the night of 27 and 28 September 2014 when the front tyre of a petrol tanker had burst in front of the residential house of one Tej Bahadur Singh of Village Sonaideeh, Rasra, District Ballia. The counter stated that an amount of rupees one lac was paid as ex gratia to the heirs of the deceased save and except in the case of the widow of one Ankur Kumar Singh to whom an amount of rupees five lac was paid under the Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna. By the order of this Court dated 19 May 2015, it was observed that there was a laxity on the part of the district administration in dealing with the matter and even the payment of compensation of rupees one lac was prima facie inadequate having due regard to the need of the time. This Court accordingly directed the District Magistrate to take necessary steps for the due and proper enhancement of compensation to the heirs of the deceased victims and towards those who were injured. In the meantime, this Court also observed that IOCL as a responsible public sector undertaking could not wash its hands off the matter since the tanker admittedly was under a contract with IOCL. Subsequently on 28 July 2015, the Court was informed that an amount of rupees sixteen lac was received since the passing of the previous order from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. Subsequently on 28 July 2015, the Court was informed that an amount of rupees sixteen lac was received since the passing of the previous order from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The Court was apprised of the payment of enhanced compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased victims or, as the case may be, to the injured persons. A statement containing a table listing out the enhanced compensation was placed on the record. This Court by its order dated 28 July 2015 also noted the stand of IOCL that a survey had been carried out since IOCL had obtained an umbrella public liability insurance policy on 1 April 2014 from the New India Assurance Company Limited. This Court directed IOCL to take all necessary and due steps to ensure that the issue pertaining to the payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased victims or, as the case may be, to the injured in terms of the insurance cover is resolved at the earliest and within two months. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the petition is now listed before this Court. 3. Insofar as the State Government is concerned, this Court has already noted in its order dated 28 July 2015, that the compensation which was originally paid to the heirs of the deceased victims or, as the case may be, to the injured has been enhanced. IOCL admittedly has taken out a public liability insurance policy on 1 April 2014 from the New India Assurance Company Limited. By the previous order of this Court, we had expected that the process of disbursing claims under the policy would be completed within a period of two months. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IOCL states that the matter is under process. However, during the course of the hearing, the attention of the Court has now been drawn to the fact that there is a remedy available under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 19912 which can effectively provide relief to the families of the deceased victims or to those who are injured in the accident. The insurance policy has been taken out by IOCL in pursuance of its liability under Section 4(1) of the Act. The insurance policy has been taken out by IOCL in pursuance of its liability under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under Section 5, it has been stipulated that when it comes to the notice of the Collector that an accident has occurred at any place within his jurisdiction, he shall verify the occurrence of such an accident and after giving publicity, as he deems fit, invite applications under sub-section (1) of Section 6. Section 6(1) provides for an application by legal representatives of deceased victims as well as by persons injured in an accident. Section 7 provides for the Collector to make an award determining the amount of the relief which appears to him to be just after due notice to the owner and upon furnishing to the parties an opportunity of being heard. Under Section 7(3), when an award is made under this section, the insurer, who is required to pay any amount in terms of the award is under a duty to deposit that amount in such manner as the Collector may direct. Under section 8(1), the right to claim relief in respect of death or injury or damage to property is in addition to any other right to claim compensation under any other law for the time being in force. 5. Having due regard to these provisions of the Act, we now direct that the Collector and District Magistrate, Ballia shall within a period of one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order issue notice inviting applications for the payment of compensation as mandated by the provisions of the Act. The Collector shall thereupon expeditiously process the matter and render a final decision in accordance with law after due notice to the owner and the insurance company as well as to IOCL. 6. Having due regard to the provisions which are contained in Section 7(7) of the Act, we would direct that the Collector shall take all necessary steps to dispose of the claims within three months from the receipt of the applications for relief under sub section (1) of Section 6. 7. In view of the aforesaid directions, no further orders are required in the present PIL which shall accordingly stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.