Thursday, December 26, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Supreme Court tells Allahabad High Court to nominate ADJ to determine compensation for people killed in 2006 Meerut Fire tragedy

The Supreme Court asks Allahabad High Court to nominate an ADJ rank officer to determine “just compensation” to kin of 65 people killed in Meerut Fire Tragedy during consumer goods fair in 2006.

A Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices Hemant Gupta and Justice Ramasubramanian passed this judgement in a petition moved by relatives of victims of the 2006 Meerut fire disaster . The Court has reserved judgement on March 25 nearly after 16 years.

Throughout the hearing , Justice (retired ) OP Garg of the Allahabad High Court was appointed by the then – Uttar Pradesh government as a one – man committee . The report’s findings , however , were challenged by the organisers , who claimed that they were not heard . By order dated July 31 , 2014 , the Top Court designated Justice ( retired ) SB Sinha as the one – man commission to investigate the subject.

The Meerut fire catastrophe occurred on April 10 , 2006 , on the final day of Mrinal Events & Expositions’ India Brand Consumer Show in Victoria Park . According to the media , a short circuit at the venue produced a fire that killed 60 individuals. There was also a stampede – like situation as a result of the occurrence

Also Read: Kal-SpiceJet dispute: Supreme Court directs SpiceJet to pay interest, adjourns hearing to Monday

Almost 2000 people were present at the time of the fire. Sanjay Gupta , who had lost five members of his family in the incident , filed the case in 2006. The plea was entered on the grounds that the State ‘s probe into the tragedy was improperly conducted .

The state was ordered to pay Rs.5 lakhs to the legal representatives of the deceased, Rs.2 lakhs to those who were gravely injured, and Rs.75,000/- to those who had lesser injuries by the same judgement.

Shanti Bhushan, a senior advocate and former Law Minister representing Mrinal Event Managing Corporation , contended that the company should not be held liable.

Also Read:

Read order below:

13713_2006_11_1501_34932_Judgement_12-Apr-2022

spot_img

News Update