Constitution of India: Arts. 21 and 32 –Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - ss.2(a), 3 - U.P. Fire Service Act, 1944 - s. 16 – Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005 - ss. 2(g) ,3 Code of Criminal Procedure - ss.133,144 - Occurrence of Fire Tragedy in a Consumer Show, organized by the respondents 10 to 12( Organizers)– Incident claimed lives of 65 persons and 161 suffered burn injuries – Organizers appointed a contractor to look after the proposed construction of exhibition infrastructure – Organizers claiming that contractors liable for fire tragedy – Appointment of Commission by theS tate of U.P. under the Commission under Inquiry Act – However, report submitted by the Commission not found sustainable by this Court – Thus, this Court appointed Justice Sinha as a one-man commission to give his report on the incident – Writ petition in respect of private law liability of the Organizers – Held : Where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence – Right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right - Art. 21 has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered –Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is very high –On facts, Organizers were the persons responsible for organizing the exhibition and informing people to visit such exhibition after purchase of the ticket – Thus, the property of the Organizers caught fire on account of their negligence and hence are liable to pay compensation – Organizers herein cannot be absolved from their duty of providing safety, even though the Contractor was engaged for providing certain services – Contractorwas working on behalf of the Organizers in terms of the work order issued – Therefore, whatsoever may be the relationship between the two, the Organizers cannot be absolutely absolved of theirliability – All permissions were required to be sought and were in fact sought by the Organizers - Victims or their families visited exhibition on the invitation of the Organizers and not that of the Contractor – Organizers were supposed to make arrangements for putting up the exhibition hall, providing electricity and water and also the food stalls for the facility of the victims/visitors – They cannot now take shelter on the ground that the Contractor who was given work order was an independent contractor and the victims should seek remedy from him – Contractor has worked for the Organizers and not for the victims – Hence, the Organizers alone are responsible to protect the life and liberty of the victims – Report of the one-man Commission not suffering from any infirmity so as to absolve the Organizers from their responsibility of organizing the exhibition – Court Commissioner rightly fixed the liability on the Organizers to the extent of 60%, and the State with 40% of the total liability – Such distribution of liability does not suffers from any illegality to warrant interference by this Court – High Court Chief Justice to entrust the work of determination of compensation to a District Judge or Additional District Judge – Compensation to be computed in accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Maxims: res ipsa loquitur – Applicability of – On facts, an exhibition organized of such substantial magnitude without proper and adequate safety factors which may endanger the life of the visitors, wherein fire broke and incident claimed lives of 65 persons and left 161 or more with burn injuries – Maxim res ipsa loquitur would be applicable as, rightly found by the Court Commissioner, an act of negligence including negligence of the officers of the State – Finding on cause of fire is not relevant in determining the civil liability.
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 : ss.2(a), 3 – Appointment of Inquiry Commission under – Held: Commission under the Act shall be appointed either by the Executive or by the Legislature but not by the Judiciary in terms of the provisions of Inquiry Act – On facts, appointment of the Court Commissioner was though to substitute the Commissioner appointed under the Inquiry Act, but under the Inquiry Act, the Court could not appoint a Commissioner – Such power is conferred only on the executive and the legislature – Thus, the jurisdiction exercised in appointing Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) was vesting with this Court under Art. 142 of the Constitution –Furthermore, it cannot be said that the appointment of the Court Commissioner was as a Commissioner of Inquiry under the Inquiry Act.
Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa &Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 746 : [1993] 2 SCR 581; Sube Singh v. State of Haryana &Ors. (2006) 3 SCC
178 : [2006] 2 SCR 67; Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 616; Radhey Shyam &Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.(2015) 5 SCC 423 : [2015] 3 SCR 197; Green Park Theatres Associated (P) Ltd. v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 663 - held inapplicable.
Sanjay Gupta & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 283 : [2014] 8 SCR 992; Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1957 SC 529 : [1957] SCR 738; Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual & Ors.: (1969) 1 SCC 585 : [1969] 3 SCR 773; Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010)
8 SCC 329 : [2010] 8 SCR 836; M.C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.(1987) 1 SCC 395 : [1987] 1 SCR 819; Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Union of India & Ors. 2000 SCC OnLine Del 216; Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 481 : [2011] 16 SCR 1; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar & Anr. (1983) 4 SCC 141 : [1983] 3 SCR 508 ; Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J & K & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 677; D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.17. (1997) 1 SCC 416 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 ; Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Association v. Union of India & Ors. 2009 SCC OnLine P & H 10273; DAV Managing Committee & Anr. v. Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. (2013)
10 SCC 494; M.S. Grewal &Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 151 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 156; Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors. AIR 1958 SC 538 : [1959] 0 SCR 279; T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 : [2001] 3 SCR 942; Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra 1992 Supp (2) SCC 521; State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 608 : [1978] 2 SCR 1; Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 1 SCC 690: [1974] 3 SCR 549; Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. (1977) 2 SCC 745 : [1977] 3 SCR 372 - referred to. Haseldine v. C.A. Daw and Son Limited & Ors. (1941)
3 All. E. R. 156 (C.A.); Green v. Fibreglass Ltd. (1958)
2 All. E. R. 521 –referred to.
Halsbury’s Laws of India Vol. 29 (1); American Jurisprudence Vol. 41 (2d) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.