Vadodara Boat Capsize: Gujarat High Court Directs Contractor To Deposit 25% Of Total Compensation By March 31

The Gujarat High Court on Monday (February 17) directed the partners of M/s Kotia Projects–the contractor firm managing activities at Harni lake Vadodara, to deposit compensation of over Rs. 3.5 crore approximately for persons who died in the Vadodara boat capsize incident- in four instalments, the first instalment of 25% to be deposited by March 31. 

On January 18, 2024, a boat capsized in Harni Lake, resulting in the deaths of 12 children and two teachers who were on a school picnic. Private firm–M/s Kotia Projects was tasked with development of the lake project by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC). In the last hearing the State had informed the court that compensation had been calculated as per the principles enshrined under the Motor Vehicles Act.

After the counsel appearing for Kotia Projects sought instructions, the court granted the firm time till March 31 to deposit 25% with the Collector, Vadodara. As the counsel prayed to file calculation with respect to compensation which had been calculated by the Collector, the court orally said that analogy for compensation from Motor Vehicles Act was drawn as for boat tragedy there is perhaps no statutory provision covering compensation. It said that the amount calculated seemed to be reasonable. 

The court said that it was not asking the firm to deposit in one go. It further orally said, "We are giving you one month time for first instalment. We will be passing order for deposit of the entire amount in four instalment. First by March 31 before the Collector, Vadodara who will keep it in the fixed deposit. Once entire amount is deposited in four instalments then there would be disbursement. We will not disburse in part, otherwise calculation would be very cumbersome...4 instalments, first of 25% by March 31. Rest in gap of 1 month. We will be passing the order". 

During the hearing the counsel appearing for the M/s Kotia Projects contended before a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi that an application was moved before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that since there were number of partners and the Lake was insured by the partners of the Kotia Projects,  the insurance company be impleaded. He said that this was rejected on the ground that the insurance company is not party in the proceedings before the high court.

The Counsel for Kotia Projects said that SDM has considered the fact that only those who are on record they are responsible therefore they had made an application to implead. 

To this the court orally said, “Please try to understand. This is a partnership firm, if there is any dispute between the partners as to which partner individually will borne the expenses, that is not the concern of the Court. It is the partnership firm which has to deposit the money. How you will work out the deposits, that is not the concern (for) us. How much is the amount (in) total for total children and two adults that died?”

The Counsel said that the amount in total was more than Rs. 3.5 crores approximately. 

The counsel then requested to take instructions as there are individual partners. The court orally said that the firm should deposit at least 50% within a short period and the rest of the amount to be deposited in two instalments and if there is a insurance policy already the firm can recover as per the policy

The Court then said,“we are not concerned with you, we are concerned with the victims and their family…please try to understand we are not concerned with the insurance company; we have fixed fault on you, we have said that you are at fault and this a fault liability which we asked the State to compute by applying Motor Vehicles Act. This is besides what victims can claim on their own.”

The firm's Counsel contended that considering the Motor Vehicle Act, an opportunity of cross examination of witnesses and documents was not available. The Court then orally noted that this is an analogy drawn from Motor Vehicles Act for assessment because the firm was found at fault. 

The counsel however said that it is as good as an award awarded by tribunal. The court however said that it was only an assessment of compensation by drawing analogy.
"If the victims go to Motor Vehicle court they may get more than what they have got here", the court further said. 

The firm's counsel said that the policy reflects the insurance coverage that the boat ride was covered and submitted that the state and central government has also paid the compensation. The Counsel further stated that the difficulty is that the partners are not united and there is a difference of opinion.