AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'MCD'). CA No. 7116/2003 is by the Licensing Authority (Commissioner of Police). CA No. 6748/2004 is by M/S. Ansal Theatre and Clubotels Pvt. Ltd., the owners of the Uphaar Cinema Theatre (for short the 'theatre owner' or 'Licensee). 2. These appeals relate to the fire at Uphaar Cinema Theatre in Green Park, South Delhi on 13.6.1997, resulting in the death of 59 patrons and injury to 103 patrons. During the matinee show of a newly released film on 13.6.1997, the patrons of the cinema hall which was full were engrossed in the film. Shortly after the interval, a transformer of Delhi Vidyut Board installed in the ground floor parking area of Uphaar Cinema, caught fire. The oil from the transformer leaked and found its way to the passage outside where many cars were parked. Two cars were parked immediately adjoining the entrance of the transformer room. The burning oil spread the fire to nearby cars and from then to the other parked cars. The burning of (i) the transformer oil (ii) the diesel and petrol from the parked vehicles (iii) the upholstery material, paint and other chemicals of the vehicles and (iv) foam and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B' for short), MCD Fire Force and the Licensing Authority. They alleged that these authorities not only failed in the discharge of their statutory obligations, but acted in a manner which was prejudicial to public interest by failing to observe the standards set under the statute and the rules framed for the purpose of preventing fire hazards; that they issued licenses and permits in complete disregard of the mandatory conditions of inspection which were required to ensure that the minimum safeguards were provided in the cinema theatre. They pointed out that most of the cinema theatres were and are being permitted to run without any proper inspection and many a time without the required licenses, permissions and clearances. They therefore, sought adequate compensation for the victims of the tragedy and punitive damages against the theatre owner, DVB, MCD, Fire Force and the Licensing Authority for showing callous disregard to their statutory obligations and to the fundamental and indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, of the theatre going public, in failing to provide safe premises, free from reasonably foreseeable hazards. They claimed co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of the Cinematograph Act and the Delhi Cinematograph Rules framed there under. 5. When the cinema theatre was constructed in the year 1973, the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953 were regulating the procedure of granting licences, inspection and conditions of licences. After the coming into force of the Commissioner of Police system, the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1983 came into force. Rule 3 provides that license shall be granted in respect of a building which is permanently equipped for Cinematograph exhibition and in respect of which the requirements set forth in first schedule of the Rules were fulfilled. The first schedule to the Rules laid down the specifications with which compliance must be made before any annual license was granted in respect of any building. Besides other things, the schedule lays down specifications regarding number of persons accommodated in the cinema hall and the manner in which the seats can be provided therein. The 1953 Rules insofar as they are relevant for accommodation, sitting, the width of gangways, stairways, exits, are extracted below: (1) Accommodation - The total number of spectators accommodated in the building shall not ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from which there are at all times free means of rapid dispersal. (5) Every passage or corridor leading from an exit in the auditorium to a final place or exit from the building shall be of such width as will in the opinion of the licensing authority enable the persons who are likely to use it in an emergency to leave the building without danger of crowding or congestion. At no point shall any such passage or corridor be less than five feet wide and it shall not diminish in width in the direction of the final place of exit. (6) The combined width of the final place of exit from the building shall be such that there are at least five feet of exit width for every hundred persons that can be accommodated in the building. (7) All exit doors shall open outwards and shall be so fitted that when opened they do not obstruct any gangway, passage, corridor, stairway or landing. (8) All exit doors and doors through which the public have to pass on the way to the open air shall be available for exit during the whole time that the public are in the building and during such time shall not be locked or bolted. (9) All exits from the auditorium and all d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the incident. He secured several reports and in turn submitted an exhaustive report on the calamity. When the investigation was transferred to CBI on 26.7.1997, they also secured several reports. The court appointed Commissioners also gave a report. These reports, enumerated below, were considered by the High Court: (i) Report dated 16.6.1997 issued by Delhi Fire Service. (ii) Report dated 25.6.1997 of Mr. K.L Grover, Electrical Inspector (Labour Department) submitted to Mr. Naresh Kumar. (iii) Report dated 25.6.1997 submitted by Mr. R.K. Bhattacharya, Executive Engineer (Building) South Zone, MCD to Mr. Naresh Kumar. (iv) Report dated 26.6.1997 submitted by the Fire Research Laboratory, Central Building Research Institute to Mr. Naresh Kumar. (v)Report dated 27.6.1997 and 11.8.1997 of Central Forensic Science Laboratory to Station House Officer. (vi) Report dated 29.6.1997 by Mr. K.V. Singh, Executive Engineer (Electrical) PWD, to Mr. Naresh Kumar. (vii) Report dated 2.7.1997 by Mr. M.L. Kothari, Electrical Deptt., IIT affirming the observations of Mr. K.V. Singh. (viii) Panchnama dated 2.8.1997 prepared by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d violated the municipal bye-laws by making several unauthorised alterations in the structure which all contributed to the incident. In particular, the violation by the owner in raising a parapet wall which was shown to be of three feet height in the sanctioned plan till the roof level had disastrous effect when the fire broke out. The stilt floor plan (sanctioned in 1972) showed that what was sanctioned was a three feet high parapet wall along the ramp which was situated to the rear of the transformer room. If the said parapet wall had been constructed only to a height of three feet as shown in the sanctioned plan, the entire space above it would have been open and in the event of any fire in the transformer room or anywhere in the stilt floor, the fumes/smoke could have dispersed into the atmosphere. But at some point of time in or around 1973, the Licensee had raised the said three feet wall up to the ceiling height of twelve feet with the result the stilt floor (parking area) stood converted into a totally enclosed area. But for the construction of the parapet wall to ceiling height, the fumes/smoke from the transformer room and from the parking area where the cars were burning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a as an exit in an emergency. Parking of vehicles in front of the three electrical rooms increased the fire hazard. If the passageway between two parked row of cars in the stilt floor had been kept free of parking as per the sanctioned plan and consequently if no cars had been parked in front of the transformer room, the fire in the transformer room would not have spread to the cars and the entire calamity could have been avoided. On that day, a contessa car parked next to the transformer room in the passageway first caught fire. (Though the sanctioned parking plan showed that the stilt floor was to be used for parking only fifteen cars with a middle passageway of fifteen feet width left free for movement of cars), the parking area was used for parking as many as 35 cars. As the parking area was overcrowded with haphazardly parked cars, the entire passageway meant for movement of cars was blocked. Not following the provisions of Electricity Act and Electricity Rules in regard to the construction of the transformer room with required safeguard and permitting haphazard parking of large number of vehicles, particularly near the transformer room started the fire and spread it. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 27.4.1973. In the year 1975, there was a general cut of 10% value of the cinema ticket rates fixed by the Delhi Administration. The licensees made a representation to the Delhi Administration alleging that the expenses had gradually gone up during the course of years after the rates were fixed and that even the existing rates were inadequate to meet the operating costs. The representation of the Association of Motion Pictures Exhibitors was considered and the Delhi Administration agreed to relax the Rules and allowed the licensees to have additional seats (in addition to the existing seats) in their cinema halls to make good the loss caused to the licensees by the reduction in the rates by 10%. Uphaar Cinema was permitted to add 43 seats in balcony and 57 seats in the main hall, as per a notification dated 30.9.1976 issued by the licensing authority. As a consequence, 43 seats were added in the balcony and 57 seats were added in the main hall of Uphaar Theatre. The Chief Fire Officer inspected the theatre and submitted a report that the addition of seats was a fire hazard. The Lt. Governor therefore issued a notification dated 27.7.1979 cancelling with immediate effect the earlie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sult in automatic removal of all additional seats. 13. In the meanwhile by order dated 6.10.1978, the Entertainment Tax Officer permitted Uphaar Cinema to install a box with eight seats for use without tickets (for complimentaries). This was not however specifically brought to the notice of the Licensing Authority nor his permission sought. These additional seats were not sanctioned by the Licensing Authority. In pursuance of such permission the Licensee closed the exit on the right side of the balcony for installing the box with eight seats. The central access was used exclusively for entry. As a result the only exit from the balcony was the one at the extreme left top corner of the balcony. 14. After the decision dated 29.11.1979, a show cause notice was issued to reconsider the addition of 100 seats and by order dated 22.12.1979, the DCP (Licensing) held that six additional seats in the balcony (seat No. 8 in rows 'A' to 'F') and 56 additional seats in the main hall were blocking the gangway and causing obstruction to egress of patrons and directed their removal so that the original vertical gangway could be restored. However on a subsequent application dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e delay, confusion and chaos, making it very difficult to get out of the balcony which was dark and full of smoke/fumes. 16. The High Court held that the theatre owner (Licencee), DVB, MCD and Licensing Authority being responsible for the incident were jointly and severally liable to compensate the victims. The High Court directed payment of compensation to the legal heirs of 59 patrons who died, and also to the 103 persons who were injured. The High Court determined a uniform compensation of Rs. 18 lakhs payable in the case of deceased who were aged more than 20 years, and 15 lakhs each in the case of those deceased who were less than 20 years of age. It also awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to each of the 103 injured. It also awarded interest at 9% per annum on the compensation from the date of filing of writ petition to date of payment. The High Court apportioned the liability inter se among the four in the ratio of 55% payable by the theatre owners and 15% each payable by the Delhi Vidyut Board, MCD and the Licensing Authority. The High Court directed that while paying compensation the ex-gratia amount wherever paid (Rs. 1,00,000 in the case of death, Rs. 50,000 in cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions for licenses reducing red tape and avoidable complications and inevitable delay. E) All necessary equipment should be provided to ambulances and the fire brigade including gas masks, search lights, map of water tanks located in the area including the existence of the location of the underground water tanks. Such water tank locations should be available to the firemen working in the area. The workshop for the fire tenders service and maintenance should also be fully equipped with all spares and other equipment and requisition made by the fire brigade should receive prompt and immediate attention. There should also be adequate training imparted to the policemen to control the crowd in the event of a disaster as it is found that onlookers are a hindrance to rescue operations. Similarly all ambulances dealing with disaster management should be fully equipped. 18. The Vidyut Board has accepted the judgment and has deposited 15% of the total compensation. The theatre owner, Delhi Police and MCD have not accepted the judgment and have filed these appeals. CAs. 7114-7115/2003 has been filed by the MCD denying any liability. The Licensing Authority has filed CA No. 7116/200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been made liable to pay compensation and whether the percentage of liability of the Licensee should be reduced from 55%. 20. On the contentions urged the following questions arise for consideration: (i) Whether MCD and Licensing Authority could be made liable to pay compensation to the victims? (ii) What should be apportionment of liability? (iii) Whether compensation awarded is excessive? (iv) Whether award of punitive damages of Rs. 2.5 crores against the Licensee was justified? We will deal with questions (i) and (ii) together and questions (iii) and (iv) together as they are interconnected. Contentions of MCD 21. MCD submitted that the writ petition focuses on the violations by the licensee, the negligence on the part of the DVB, Fire Force and the licencing authority; no specific role assigned to the MCD in regard to the incident; that the writ petition deals with the responsibilities of the owners (licensees) (paras 2 to 6 and 15); Delhi Vidyut Board (para 7); licencing authority - Delhi Police (paras 8 to 14) and seeks to make them liable. The role of Delhi Fire Services (para 16) is referred. Role of Licensing Authority, Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the said wall. 23. MCD submitted that it could easily demonstrate from the relevant enactment and Rules that it had no role to play in regard to the raising the height of the parapet wall by the theatre owner, nor any liability for such action by the theatre owner and as a consequence they should have been exonerated. It was pointed out that under the Cinematograph Act the Licensing Authority grants a cinematograph licence enabling a theatre owner to run cinema shows in the theatre. The Cinematographic Rules, 1953 contemplated the licensing authority obtaining clearances/consents from the Executive Engineer PWD and Electrical Inspector. Even the Delhi Cinematographic Rules of 1983 contemplated certificates/consents being obtained by the Licensing Authority from the Public Works Department, Electrical Inspector and Chief Fire Officer every year before renewing the licence. Even in regard to the design and construction of the cinema theatre, the rules under the Cinematographic Act applied and prevailed and the municipal bye-laws did not contain any provision as to the construction of cinema theatre but on the other hand, clearly provided that the matter will be governed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity for any report as per Cinematograph Rules, it acts bona fide and in accordance with the relevant rules and bye-laws, in the absence of malafides, it can not be made liable even if there were any errors or irregularities or violations. It was submitted that it cannot also be made liable for any violation by the theatre owner in putting up the construction in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the MCD or any violation of the rules or licence terms or negligence in running the cinema theatre. 26. It was contended by the victims Association that the liability of the Municipal Corporation arises from the fact that it was one of the authorities which was required to give Reports/No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to the licensing authority every year, for construction and grant of renewal of licence. As admitted by the MCD itself the responsibility of granting a certificate in regard to the condition of the structure of the building and the violations in construction thereof was entrusted to the MCD on 3.5.1994. It was contended that if the Municipal Corporation had discharged its functions as was expected of them by thorough inspection of the theatre building and pointed out to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ements of the Electricity Act and the Rules there under and whether all precautions had been taken to protect the spectators and employees from electric shock and to prevent the introduction of fire in the building through the use of electrical equipments; and (iii) the Chief Fire Officer to ensure that proper means of escape and safety against fire and to report whether proper fire extinguishers appliances have been provided. All defects revealed by such inspections were required to be brought to the notice of the licensee and the licensing authority that may refuse to grant or renew the licences unless and until they are remedied to its satisfaction. In fact even for granting a temporary licence, Rule 15 required the licensing authority to call upon the Executive Engineer, PWD, to inspect the building and report whether it is structurally safe for cinematographic exhibition. The said rules were amended by Cinematograph Amendment Rules, 1994 by notification dated 3.5.1994. By virtue of the said amendment wherever the term 'Executive Engineer' appeared it was to be substituted by the words 'concerned local body'. The term concerned local body was also defined as ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it clear that if there were any violations by the theatre owner, the licensing authority was at liberty to take such steps as were necessary to ensure that the violations or deviations were set right. The said interim order made it clear that if there were any violations, he can also move the High Court for vacating the interim order. The Licensing Authority moved an application on 19.4.1993 citing several serious violations committed by the licensee. But the High Court did not vacate the stay. Therefore the Licensing Authority had to issue temporary licences in spite of any irregularities. Therefore the Licensing Authority could not be held responsible. 30. While sparking in the Delhi Vidyut Board transformer due to negligence in maintenance, started the fire, the impact of this fire would not have been so tragic, (i) if the cars not been parked in front of and very close to the transformer in a haphazard manner; (ii) if adequate exits had been provided on both sides of the balcony; (iii) if the owners of the theatre had not closed top right exit of the balcony to provide a private box for the owners resulting in an exit only on one side of the balcony; (iv) if the owners had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unicipal Corporation v. M.J. Nakum (1997) 9 SCC 552 dealing with a case seeking damages under law of torts for negligence by municipality, held as follows: The conditions in India have not developed to such an extent that a Corporation can keep constant vigil by testing the healthy condition of the trees in the public places, road-side, highway frequented by passers-by. There is no duty to maintain regular supervision thereof, though the local authority/other authority/owner of a property is under a duty to plant and maintain the- tree. The causation for accident is too remote. Consequently, there would be no Common Law right to file suit for tort of negligence. It would not be just and proper to fasten duty of care and liability for omission thereof. It would be difficult for the local authority etc. to foresee such an occurrence. Under these circumstances, it would be difficult to conclude that the Appellant has been negligent in the maintenance of the trees planted by it on the road-sides. In Geddis v. Proprietors of Bonn Reservoir (1878) 3 AC 430, the House of Lords held: For I take it, without citing cases, that is now thoroughly well established that no a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., having exercised its discretion as to the manner or frequency of inspection, carried out the inspection without reasonable care or at all. There is no evidence or indeed allegation in this regard... would therefore dismiss the appeal. (Emphasis supplied) In Roger Holland v. Government of Saskatchewan and Ors. (2008) 2 SCR 551 the Canadian Supreme Court held: The law to date has not recognized an action for negligent breach of statutory duty. It is well established that mere breach of a statutory duty does not constitute negligence: The Queen in right of Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1983) 1 SCR 205. The proper remedy for breach of statutory duty by a public authority, traditionally viewed, is judicial review for invalidity. In Union of India v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.(1997) 8 SCC 683 this Court held: ...But in East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v. Kent 1941 AC 74, Lord Romer had stated: Where a statutory authority is entrusted with a mere power it cannot be made liable for any damage sustained by a member of the public by reason of its failure to exercise that power. In Anns v. Merton London Borough 1977 (2) All....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so the decisions of the English and Canadian Courts that it is not proper to award damages against public authorities merely because there has been some inaction in the performance of their statutory duties or because the action taken by them is ultimately found to be without authority of law. In regard to performance of statutory functions and duties, the courts will not award damages unless there is malice or conscious abuse. The cases where damages have been awarded for direct negligence on the part of the statutory authority or cases involving doctrine of strict liability cannot be relied upon in this case to fasten liability against MCD or the Licensing Authority. The position of DVB is different, as direct negligence on its part was established and it was a proximate cause for the injuries to and death of victims. It can be said that in so far as the licensee and DVB are concerned, there was contributory negligence. The position of licensing authority and MCD is different. They were not the owners of the cinema theatre. The cause of the fire was not attributable to them or anything done by them. Their actions/omissions were not the proximate cause for the deaths and injuries.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statutory sanction/approval and without providing all the safety measures which it was duty bound to provide under the relevant Electricity Rules, and therefore, DVB alone should be responsible for the tragedy. This contention has no merit. In fact none in the main hall (ground floor of the theatre) died. Those on the second floor also escaped. It is only those in the balcony caught in noxious fumes, which died of asphyxiation. The deaths were on account of the negligence and greed on the part of the licensee in regard to installation of additional seats, in regard to closing of an exit door, parking of cars in front of transformer room by increasing parking from 15 to 35 and other acts. We therefore reject the contention that DVB should be made exclusively liable to pay the compensation. We have already held that the Licensing Authority and MCD are not liable. Therefore, the liability will be 85% (Licensee) and 15% (DVB). 35. We may next consider whether the compensation awarded in this case is proper and in accordance with the principles of public law remedy. As noticed above, the High Court has awarded compensation to the legal heirs of 57 deceased victims at the rate of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y applying the multiplier of 15 was improper. This gives rise to the following question: Whether the income and multiplier method adopted to finally determine compensation can be arrived while awarding tentative or palliative compensation by way of a public law remedy under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution? 37.1) Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar 1983 (4) SCC 141 was one of the earliest decisions where interim compensation was awarded by way of public law remedy in the case of an illegal detention. This Court explained the rationale for awarding such interim compensation thus: This order will not preclude the Petitioner from bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the state and its erring officials. The order of compensation passed by us is, as we said above, in the nature of a palliative. We cannot leave the Petitioner penniless until the end of his suit, the many appeals and the execution proceedings. A full-dressed debate on the nice points of fact and law which takes place leisurely in compensation suits will have to await the filing of such a suit by the poor Rudul Sah. 37.2) In Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa 1993 (2) SCC 746 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in a civil action based on tortuous liability. But in such a case it is improper to assume admittedly without any basis, that every person who visits a cinema theatre and purchases a balcony ticket should be of a high income group person. In the year 1997, Rs. 15,000 per month was rather a high income. The movie was a new movie with patriotic undertones. It is known that zealous movie goers, even from low income groups, would not mind purchasing a balcony ticket to enjoy the film on the first day itself. To make a sweeping assumption that every person who purchased a balcony class ticket in 1997 should have had a monthly income of Rs. 15,000 and on that basis apply high multiplier of 15 to determine the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 18 lakhs in the case of persons above the age of 20 years and Rs. 15 lakhs for persons below that age, as a public law remedy, may not be proper. While awarding compensation to a large group of persons, by way of public law remedy, it will be unsafe to use a high income as the determinative factor. The reliance upon Neelabati Behera in this behalf is of no assistance as that case related to a single individual and there was specific evidence av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also be excluded by adopting a standard deduction of one third towards personal expenses. Therefore just two factors are required to be ascertained to determine the compensation in 59 individual cases. First is the annual income of the deceased, two third of which becomes the annual loss of dependency the age of the deceased which will furnish the multiplier in terms of Sarla Verma. The annual loss of dependency multiplied by the multiplier will give the compensation. 40. As this is a comparatively simple exercise, we direct the Registrar General of Delhi High Court to receive applications in regard to death cases, from the claimants (legal heirs of the deceased) who want a compensation in excess of what has been awarded that is Rs. 10 lakhs/Rs. 7.5 lakhs. Such applications should be filed within three months from today. He shall hold a summary inquiry and determine the compensation. Any amount awarded in excess of what is hereby awarded as compensation shall be borne exclusively by the theatre owner. To expedite the process the concerned claimants and the Licensee with their respective counsel shall appear before the Registrar without further notice. For this purpose the claima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e remaining 37 seats were found to be valid by the authorities. Therefore, if at all the licensee is to be made liable to reimburse the profits earned from illegal seats, it should be only in regard to these 15 seats and the eight seats in the Box which was the cause for closing one of the exits. In so far as the eight seats in the owner's box, though it is alleged that they were intended to be used only as complimentary seats, for the purpose of award of punitive damages, they are treated at par with other balcony seats. The High Court also wrongly assumed that the ticket value to be Rs. 50/- from 1979 to 1996, because it was Rs. 50/- in the year 1997 for a balcony seat. Another erroneous assumption made is that for all shows on all the days, all these additional seats would be fully occupied. On a realistic assessment, (at a net average income of Rs. 12/- per seat with average 50% occupancy for 23 seats) the profits earned from these seats for 17 years would at best Rs. 25,00,000/-. Be that as it may. 42. We may next consider the appropriateness and legality of award of punitive damages. In this context, we may refer to the decision in M C Mehta v. Union of India 1987 (1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an industrial economy, there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability merely because it has not been so done in England. We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and nondelegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part... ...Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uce it from Rs. 2.5 crores to Rs. 25 lakhs for the reasons stated in the earlier para. The award of the said sum, as additional punitive damages, covers two aspects. The first is because the wrongdoing is outrageous in utter disregard of the safety of the patrons of the theatre. The second is the gravity of the breach requiring a deterrent to prevent similar further breaches. General observations and suggestions 44. The Parliament has enacted the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Section 1(3) thereof provides that it shall come into force on such dates as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint; and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act for different States, and any reference to commencement in any provisions of the Act in relation to any State shall be construed as a reference to the commencement of that provision in that State. All the provisions of the Act have not been brought into effect in all the States. Having regard to the object of the Act, bringing the Act into force promptly would be in public interest. In so far as Delhi is concerned, by notification dated 19.3.2008, the Government of NCT of Delhi has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... request the patrons to use the exit doors by placing a temporary barrier across the entry gate which should be easily movable. (v) There should be mandatory half yearly inspections of cinema theatres by a senior officer from the Delhi Fire Services, Electrical Inspectorate and the Licensing Authority to verify whether the electrical installations and safety measures are properly functioning and take action wherever necessary. (vi) As the cinema theatres have undergone a change in the last decade with more and more multiplexes coming up, separate rules should be made for Multiplex Cinemas whose requirements and concerns are different from stand-alone cinema theatres. (vii) An endeavour should be made to have a single point nodal agency/licensing authority consisting of experts in structural Engineering/building, fire prevention, electrical systems etc. The existing system of police granting licences should be abolished. (viii) Each cinema theatre, whether it is a multiplex or stand-alone theatre should be given a fire safety rating by the Fire Services which can be in green (fully compliant), yellow (satisfactorily compliant), red (poor complianc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sums at the rate of 9% per annum is affirmed. (d) If the legal representatives of any deceased victim are not satisfied with the compensation awarded, they are permitted to file an application for compensation with supporting documentary proof (to show the age and the income), before the Registrar General, Delhi High Court. If such an application if filed within three months, it shall not be rejected on the ground of delay. The Registrar General or such other Member of Higher Judiciary nominated by the learned Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice of the High Court shall decide those applications in accordance with paras above and place the matter before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court for consequential formal orders determining the final compensation payable to them. (e) The injured victims who are not satisfied with the award of Rs. One lakh as compensation, may approach the civil court in three months, in which event the claims shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay. (f) While disbursing the compensation amount, any ex gratia payment by the Central Government/Delhi Government shall not be taken into account. But other payments on accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... constitutional powers to examine a claim for compensation, merely due to violation of some statutory provisions resulting in monetary loss to the claimants. Most of the cases in which Courts have exercised their constitutional powers are when there is intense serious violation of personal liberty, right to life or violation of human rights. But, even in private law remedy against the State and its instruments they claim immunity on the plea that they are discharging sovereign functions, even in cases where there is violation of personal liberty. 50. This Court in State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati AIR 1962 SC 933, rejected claim of the State sovereign immunity and upheld the award of compensation in tort for the death of a pedestrian due to the rash and negligent driving of a Government jeep. In Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 1039, drawing distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions, the apex Court rejected the plea of arrest in violation of the U.P. Police Regulation on the ground that the arrest was made as a part of the sovereign powers of the State. Kasturi Lal was a Constitution Bench judgment. However, in N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P. AIR 1994 SC 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1868) LR 3 HL 330, Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562, however, still guides us. In several situations, where officials are dealing with hazardous or explosive substance, the maxim re ipsa loquitor applies. Reference may be made to the decision in Lloyde v. Westminster (1972) All E.R. 1240, Henderson v. Ehenry Jenkins and Sons (1969) 2 All E.R. 756. Principles laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson, which highlighted the neighbour principle as a test to determine whether a potential duty of care exists, however is held to be not applicable to all fact situations. Lord Weilberfoce enunciated a dual test in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council (1978) AC 728, of existence of proximity and reasonable foreseeability and a failure to take care that causes harm to the claimant. The House of Lords, however, in Murphy v. Brentwood Dsitrict Council (1990) 3 WLR 414, however, overruled Anns on the ground that there was no duty to take care on the legal authority to prevent power economic loss occurring. House of Lords, however, in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605 : 1990 All E.R. 568 laid down three tests i.e. the claimants must show that harm was reasonably foreseeable, the rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when claims are raised against public bodies for negligence or violation of statutory duties. It is worth noticing that the Law Commission, U.K. in its consultation paper on "Administrative Redress" proposed that Judges should apply a 'principle of modified corrective justice' when deciding negligence claims against public bodies. (Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 187 (2008). The Law Commission consequently proposed the introduction of a new touchstone of liability: 'serious fault'. The Law Commission's most far-reaching reform proposals relate to "court based redress" which suggests 'the creation of a specific regime for public bodies' based around a number of common elements such as Judges would apply a standard of 'serious fault' in both judicial review and negligence proceedings. 55. Richard Mullender in an essay on Negligence, Public Bodies and Ruthlessness which appeared in "The Modern Law Review" (2009) 72 (6) MLR 961-98, argues for a reform of negligence law (as it applies to public bodies) that is different from that proposed by the Law Commission, such as application of the proportionality principle at the third stage of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Forum v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14, Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India : 1995 Supp (3) SCC 387, Sube Singh v. State of Haryana 2006 (3) SCC 178 etc. Specific reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa AIR 1993 SC 1960, wherein this Court held that the concept of sovereign immunity is not applicable to the cases of violation of fundamental rights and summarized as follows: A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations generally falls in that category of breach of statutory duty by a public authority. To decide whether the breach is actionable, the Court must generally look at the statute and its provisions and determine whether legislature in its wisdom intended to give rise to a cause of action in damages and whether the claimant is intended to be protected. 60. But, in a case, 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 Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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. Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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, therefore, very high, compared to the statutory powers and supervision expected from officers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal expenses, mental and physical suffering, property damage etc. Adoption of those methods as such in computing the damages for violation of constitutional torts may not be proper. In Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India (supra) the apex Court laid down parameters in assisting the victims of rape including the liability of the State to provide compensation to the victims and held as follows: It is necessary, having regard to the directive principles contained under Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India to set up Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Rape victims frequently incurred substantial financial loss. Some, for example were too traumatized to continue in employment. Compensation for victims shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender and by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board whether or not a conviction has taken place. The Board will take into account the pain, suffering and shock as well as loss of earnings due to pregnancy and the expenses of the child but if it is occurred as a result of rape. 63. Legal liability in damages exist solely as a remedy out of private law action in tort which is generally time cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom publishing a book and was asked to give an account of his profits gained from writing the book. In this case where the wrong doer was made to give up the profits made, through restitution for wrongs, certainly the claimant gained damages. In United States, in a few States, punitive damages are determined based on statutes. But often criticisms are raised because of the high imposition of punitive damages by courts. The Supreme Court of United States has rendered several decisions limiting the awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore 517 U.S. 559 (1996) the Court ruled that the punitive damages must be reasonable, as determined based on the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct, the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages and any criminal or civil penalties applicable to the conduct. In Philip Morris USA v. Williams 549 U.S. 346 (2007), the Court ruled that the award of punitive damages cannot be imposed for the direct harm that the misconduct caused to others, but may consider harm to others as a function of determining how reprehensible it was. There is no hard a....