Morbi Bridge Tragedy | Gujarat HC Questions State's 'Incomplete' Affidavit, Calls For Positive Solution Regarding Compensation For Victims' Families

Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice P. Aniruddh Mayee presiding over the hearing, directed the Oreva Group, responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Morbi suspension bridge that collapsed in 2022, to provide a "positive solution" regarding compensation for the victims' families.

The court emphasized that the company will “have to come out with a positive solution and concrete things”.

Chief Justice Agarwal, in oral remarks, suggested the establishment of a Trust to handle compensation matters. She noted, “You will have to create a Trust. What we have suggested on the last occasion is that you have to take care of everyone till his last breath. ... If there's a Trust, then there's a body independent of individuals, and that body may take care of it.”

The Court terming the presented affidavit “incomplete”, emphasized the necessity for a comprehensive report shedding light on the condition of children affected by the incident that claimed 135 lives.

This affidavit was presented by Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, revealing that 21 children had lost one or both parents in the Morbi Bridge tragedy.

In the submitted affidavit, the State also furnished information about the widows and dependent elderly parents of individuals who lost their lives in the incident, along with details about children who were orphaned or left with a single parent.

AG Trivedi stated that an evaluation was conducted concerning the victims, and the relevant information was provided to the company to facilitate the determination of appropriate compensation amounts. The company was then encouraged to make a decision in this regard.

The affidavit included the following specifics:

Four individuals affected by the tragedy required mental health treatment and were referred to the civil hospital for further examinations. Additionally, home-based treatment was arranged for 54-year-old Kusum Rathod, who expressed difficulty in visiting a hospital.

Out of the 74 people injured in the incident, 18 suffered minor injuries and were discharged after a brief hospital stay. The remaining 56 required extended treatment and follow-ups, with three of them experiencing disabilities of 40 percent or more, as per Trivedi's statement to the court.

Ten women became widows due to the tragedy. Among them, four accepted job offers from the Oreva Group, while six declined employment. Reasons for refusal included one woman already working as a conductor and another expressing a preference for a sewing machine. Families of two widows did not allow them to take up jobs, with one woman citing baby care as a reason for not being able to work outside. These individuals were open to receiving sewing machines and monthly monetary compensation from the company.

Additionally, there are 45 elderly individuals, aged 50 and above, who were left behind by the deceased, Trivedi informed the court.

Concerning children, seven were orphaned, and 14 lost one parent, as highlighted by Trivedi.

Nirupam Nanavaty, the Counsel appearing for the Oreva Group, affirmed that the company is committed to providing maximum support to the victims. The specifics of compensation have been outlined and are currently undergoing refinement.

Regarding orphaned individuals, the company is covering annual costs for education, food, clothing, and accommodation. Additionally, a sum of Rs 50,000 per child has already been disbursed, according to Nanavaty.

However, the court highlighted the ambiguity surrounding the status of the remaining parents of those 14 children. The Court noted that the inquiry into the children's situation was incomplete and questioned the labeling of children as orphans when being cared for by grandparents.

It was pointed out by the Court that the report failed to specify which parent succumbed to the tragedy, their role as the family's breadwinner, or the current residence of the affected children.

The court identified discrepancies and mistakes in the report, criticizing the collector's role in the matter.

Emphasizing the need for accuracy and completeness in documenting the particulars of each affected child's situation, the High Court directed authorities to file a thoroughly prepared and detailed report on the status of the children who lost one of their parents in the tragedy.

The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavit submitted by the counsel representing the Oreva company, terming it incomplete, and called for a more comprehensive and accurate submission regarding the company's role in providing information related to the tragic incident.

The next hearing on this matter is scheduled for February 26.