Bombay High Court Orders BMC To Pay ₹50 Lakh Each To Families Of Victims Killed In 2015 Hotel City Kinara Fire

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 10) while holding the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) responsible for the death of eight youngster, who died in a tragic fire that broke out in a eatery in Mumbai and therefore ordered the civic body to pay Rs 50 lakh to the families of each of the victims.

A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwala said that the BMC despite being aware of the flagrant violations by the eatery - Hotel City Kinara situated in Kurla, did not take timely action against the said eatery and thus it has violated the fundamental rights of the family members of the eight persons, who died in the accident.

"The loss of life of the Petitioners' children/ husband, has resulted in violation of their fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as far as the Petitioners are concerned, the loss of life of their children/ husband has caused immense trauma and agony to them. In addition, the Petitioners, who are from low to middle income backgrounds, have lost the potential bread earners of their families. This has resulted in a gross violation of Petitioners' right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the bench held. 

This violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners and their children/ husband under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the judges said, has been caused as a direct result of the negligence and breach of statutory duties on the part of the BMC.

"The BMC is directed to pay to each of the Petitioners compensation of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of this Order. If compensation is not paid within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks, then the said sum of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from today till payment and/or realisation," the judges ordered. 

The bench was hearing the petitions filed by families of the eight youngsters, who died on the afternoon of October 16, 2015, while dining in the eatery, seeking compensation. Among the deceased including a girl - Akash Thapar, Erwin Dsouza, Brian Fernando, Arvind Kanaujia, Sharjeel Shaikh, Taha Shaikh, Bernadette D'souza and Sajid Chaudhary - seven were students while one was a married adult. 

On the day of the incident, the deceased were having lunch on the mezzanine floor (an intermediate floor) which was actually constructed for storage purposes. However, the owners of the eatery had put up tables and chairs for 16 persons to eat and even stored cylinders on the said floor, which was an illegal use of the said floor. 

The judges noted from the record that during a routine inspection on September 13, 2012, the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) of the BMC found that Kinara was infringing various conditions of its license. Amongst the infringements was that no letter from the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) granting permission for running the restaurant was produced at the time of inspection. Further, it was also found that the restaurant was using extra space outside the licensed premises for preparation of eatables such as Chinese food.

Again in an inspection conducted on September 2, 2015, which is nearly 40 days before the incident, the civic officials found various violations including the fact that the mezzanine floor was being used for 'service purpose.' 

What is important to note is that this inspection report showed that BMC was aware since September 13, 2012 itself that Kinara did not possess a Fire NOC. However, no action was taken by the BMC in that regard, the judges noted. 

"When activities are hazardous and are inherently dangerous, the Statute expects the highest degree of care, and if some one is injured because of such activities, the State and its officials are liable even if they could establish that there was no negligence and that it was not intentional. Public safety legislations generally fall in that category of breach of statutory duty by a public authority. The supervision and maintenance of adequate fire prevention measures in places of public entertainments such as an eating house like Kinara, is a statutory duty of the BMC. Since this duty pertains to public health and safety, on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, a higher standard of care is imposed upon the BMC and its officials," the bench observed.  

Various breaches of the license conditions were committed by Kinara and these breaches increased the danger of fire even the BMC received complaints in that regard, carried out inspections, and was fully aware of the said fire safety violations committed in Kinara, the judges noted, adding, "Despite being aware of such fire safety violations, the BMC did not take any action against Kinara. In our view, these factors clearly show that Kinara was granted an eating housing license without it obtaining any fire NOC from the Fire Brigade Department. This, in our view, was one of the most egregious breaches committed not only by the owner and operator of Kinara but also by the BMC by issuing an eating house license to Kinara without obtaining any fire NOC."

The judges said that by initially granting an eating house license to Kinara without a fire NOC, and thereafter not taking any action against Kinara when it was discovered that Kinara was operating without a fire NOC, the BMC has committed gross negligence and has acted totally in breach of its statutory duties.

With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition. 

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer along with Advocates Hasmit Trivedi, Mehek Shah and Jayesh Mestry appeared for the Petitioners.

Government Pleader Purnima Kantharia along with Additional Government Pleader Abhay Patki represented the State.

Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare along with Advocates Yashodeep Deshmukh, Jyoti Mhatre, Anuja Tirmali and Komal Punjabi represented BMC.

Advocates SR Page, Eesha Jaifalkar and Archana Joglekar represented HPCL.

Advocates Vighnesh Kamat and Satish Kamat represented Adani Electricity. 

Case Title: Rekha P Thapar vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 659 of 2018)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment