2001 (8) TMI 1444 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Prosecution of Tata Iron and Steel Company officers for negligence.
2. Compensation to victims by the State Government and the Company.
3. Security and safety for the victims' families.
4. Provision of legal assistance to victims.
5. Determination of compensation by Shri Y.V. Chandrachud.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Prosecution of Tata Iron and Steel Company Officers for Negligence:
The petitioners alleged negligence by Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) in organizing the event on March 3, 1989, which led to a devastating fire resulting in 60 deaths and 113 injuries. The State of Bihar was accused of colluding with TISCO and failing to take action against the negligent officers. The State denied these allegations, stating that inquiries were conducted, and criminal prosecutions were launched based on the findings.

2. Compensation to Victims by the State Government and the Company:
The petitioners sought compensation for the victims from both the State Government and TISCO. TISCO, while denying negligence, agreed to let the court determine the monetary compensation. The Supreme Court referred the matter to Shri Y.V. Chandrachud to determine the compensation, applying principles from specific Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions.

3. Security and Safety for the Victims' Families:
The petitioners requested security and safety for the victims' families, fearing harassment by TISCO. This issue was acknowledged but not elaborated upon in the judgment.

4. Provision of Legal Assistance to Victims:
The petitioners also sought legal assistance for the victims to pursue cases in criminal and civil courts. This request was noted but not detailed in the judgment.

5. Determination of Compensation by Shri Y.V. Chandrachud:
Shri Y.V. Chandrachud was tasked with determining the compensation for the deceased and injured. He applied the multiplier method, a well-established method for assessing future losses, and considered various factors such as age, income, and dependency. The compensation for housewives was based on the value of services rendered, while for children, it was determined based on age and potential future contribution.

Detailed Analysis:

Prosecution and Negligence:
The petitioners accused TISCO of gross negligence in organizing the event, violating safety measures, and the Factories Act. The State was alleged to have colluded with TISCO, showing inaction. The State countered these claims, stating inquiries were conducted and prosecutions launched.

Compensation Determination:
The Supreme Court appointed Shri Y.V. Chandrachud to determine compensation, who used the multiplier method, commonly applied in motor vehicle accident cases. He considered various factors, including the deceased's age, income, and dependency. For housewives, he estimated the value of their services at Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 36,000 per annum, depending on age, and applied appropriate multipliers. For children, a uniform sum was initially fixed, which the court later enhanced.

Security and Legal Assistance:
The petitioners' request for security and legal assistance was noted but not detailed in the judgment.

Final Compensation:
Shri Y.V. Chandrachud awarded Rs. 1,19,58,320/- for the deceased and Rs. 288 lakh as interim compensation for the injured. The Supreme Court enhanced the conventional figure added to the compensation from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000. For housewives, the value of services was increased to Rs. 36,000 per annum for those aged 34-59 and Rs. 20,000 for those aged 62-72. For children, the compensation was tripled for those aged 5-10 and significantly increased for those aged 10-15.

Injured Persons:
Compensation for injured persons was determined based on the extent of burn injuries, ranging from Rs. 3 lakh to Rs. 10 lakh for girls and Rs. 3 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh for boys. The court awarded a lump sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for those with burn injuries of 10% and below.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court expressed gratitude to Shri Y.V. Chandrachud for his efforts and acknowledged the valuable services of the counsel involved. The petition was disposed of with directions for TISCO to deposit the enhanced compensation amounts within three months. The compensation was to be disbursed to the claimants via account payee cheques or bank drafts. The court appreciated the non-adversarial stance taken by TISCO and the assistance provided by the counsel.