AHMEDABAD: For the welfare of the kin of the victims of the Morbi suspension bridge tragedy, the Gujarat high court on Friday asked Oreva Groupwhich was managing the bridge, to pay stipends to widows and pensions to elderly parents of those who died.
After the state government submitted an action-taken report on the bridge collapse, the bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee asserted that one-time compensation will not be enough for bereaved persons requiring support all through their lives.
When Oreva Group’s lawyer submitted that the company employs 5,000 women and the widows will be employed, the CJ said all women may not have the courage or ability to go out and work. On resistance from the company, the CJ told the company’s lawyer, “This is not your bounty.”
Expressing concern for elderly male relatives of those killed, the CJ asked for financial support for them. The court suggested that the company establish a trust to take care of the future needs of the victims’ kin. The court also sought the government’s suggestions in this regard, besides asking for details on schemes to provide for the victims’ dependents for the rest of their lives.
The high court also said that certain victims are mentally affected and in depression and they should be provided proper medical care as “not all injuries are physical”.
When the company complained that the victims’ hostility and allegations of tampering with evidence hamper its work with them, the court ordered that they rope in the district collector, who has been asked to collect information on the health and financial conditions of the bereaved and to coordinate welfare measures.
Oreva’s lawyer also complained about the delay in hearing the bail plea filed by company CMD Jaysukh Patel and urged that his plight be considered. This infuriated the bench. The CJ said, “Please do not use this word for yourself. Let this word remain for those who have actually suffered… Don’t force us to say something we don’t want to. After going through this SIT report, can you say you are the sufferer? This was your act. You are the company. You gave a contract to a person not competent to carry out repair work. He replaced wooden planks with aluminium.”
The government also informed the court about the condition of 1,900 major bridges, of which 384 are in municipal corporation areas and 113 in municipalities. The CJ raised the issue of the dilapidated Gondal bridge and suggested that old bridges be repaired by roping in expert architects from the ASI and INTACH. The HC sought a report on the plan to identify old bridges and restore or renovate them. The court also said that giving a contract to a person unable to repair an old bridge could result in a Morbi-like disaster. “If you put these things in the hands of those people, they will not be able to take care of things. You will lose the structure or you will lose lives. I don’t think you can afford any of these,” the CJ said. The state government assured the court that it would maintain all such bridges in municipalities.
After the state government submitted an action-taken report on the bridge collapse, the bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee asserted that one-time compensation will not be enough for bereaved persons requiring support all through their lives.
When Oreva Group’s lawyer submitted that the company employs 5,000 women and the widows will be employed, the CJ said all women may not have the courage or ability to go out and work. On resistance from the company, the CJ told the company’s lawyer, “This is not your bounty.”
Expressing concern for elderly male relatives of those killed, the CJ asked for financial support for them. The court suggested that the company establish a trust to take care of the future needs of the victims’ kin. The court also sought the government’s suggestions in this regard, besides asking for details on schemes to provide for the victims’ dependents for the rest of their lives.
The high court also said that certain victims are mentally affected and in depression and they should be provided proper medical care as “not all injuries are physical”.
When the company complained that the victims’ hostility and allegations of tampering with evidence hamper its work with them, the court ordered that they rope in the district collector, who has been asked to collect information on the health and financial conditions of the bereaved and to coordinate welfare measures.
Oreva’s lawyer also complained about the delay in hearing the bail plea filed by company CMD Jaysukh Patel and urged that his plight be considered. This infuriated the bench. The CJ said, “Please do not use this word for yourself. Let this word remain for those who have actually suffered… Don’t force us to say something we don’t want to. After going through this SIT report, can you say you are the sufferer? This was your act. You are the company. You gave a contract to a person not competent to carry out repair work. He replaced wooden planks with aluminium.”
The government also informed the court about the condition of 1,900 major bridges, of which 384 are in municipal corporation areas and 113 in municipalities. The CJ raised the issue of the dilapidated Gondal bridge and suggested that old bridges be repaired by roping in expert architects from the ASI and INTACH. The HC sought a report on the plan to identify old bridges and restore or renovate them. The court also said that giving a contract to a person unable to repair an old bridge could result in a Morbi-like disaster. “If you put these things in the hands of those people, they will not be able to take care of things. You will lose the structure or you will lose lives. I don’t think you can afford any of these,” the CJ said. The state government assured the court that it would maintain all such bridges in municipalities.