Allahabad HC: Mandates Uniform Compensation Policy for UP Fire

• The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to formulate a uniform compensation policy for fire incidents not covered by natural calamity provisions.
• This directive stems from a PIL filed by Advocate Shivendu Pandey following a June fire in Lucknow that killed 15 young people and injured several others.
• The court observed significant disparities in compensation amounts paid by the State for similar incidents, ranging from a few lakhs to Rs 50 lakh.
• Supreme Court judgments, including Sanjay Gupta vs. State of U.P. (2022), were cited, suggesting motor accident claim principles can apply where no specific policy exists.
• The court also addressed the case of an injured victim incurring Rs 70,000 monthly medical expenses but receiving only Rs 50,000 in compensation.

Such a framework was deemed essential to prevent discrimination and arbitrariness, ensuring that compensation aligns with the true deservingness of each case.

The Allahabad High Court has issued a significant directive to the Uttar Pradesh government, compelling it to establish a comprehensive and uniform compensation policy for victims of fire incidents that fall outside the purview of existing natural calamity policies and specific statutory provisions. This ruling by a division bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla aims to standardize payouts and eliminate arbitrary decision-making in such cases across the state.

The court's intervention arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by Advocate Shivendu Pandey. This PIL was prompted by a tragic fire that occurred in June at a Housing and Animation Centre in Aliganj, Lucknow. The incident resulted in the deaths of 15 young individuals, with several others sustaining severe injuries or permanent disabilities. The lack of a clear, consistent framework for compensation in such non-natural calamity events became a central point of contention, highlighting the need for a new Uttar Pradesh compensation policy for fire incidents.

A key concern for the Allahabad High Court was the observed disparity in compensation amounts disbursed by the State government for similar incidents. The bench noted that while some victims had received approximately Rs 50 lakh, and others around Rs 25 lakh, the compensation in the Aliganj fire case amounted to only a few lakhs. An earlier court order had also highlighted a payment of Rs 12 lakh per deceased person from various departments, prompting the court to question the basis for such varied quantum of compensation.

Initially, the State informed the court that its existing compensation framework was primarily designed for natural calamities and did not encompass incidents like the fire in question. The High Court emphasized that whenever the State decides to grant compensation outside established statutory provisions, a clear policy with defined parameters is indispensable. Such a framework was deemed essential to prevent discrimination and arbitrariness, ensuring that compensation aligns with the true deservingness of each case and addresses the issue of Allahabad High Court compensation discrimination.

In its deliberations, the bench considered three pivotal Supreme Court decisions concerning compensation in fire incidents: Sanjay Gupta vs. State of U.P. (2022), DAV Managing Committee and Anr. vs. Dabwali Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. (2013), and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011). These rulings establish that in the absence of a specific policy or statutory framework, principles applicable to motor accident claims can be utilized to determine and disburse compensation. The High Court instructed the State to consider these precedents and submit an affidavit detailing the compensation already provided to victims' families and justifying why these amounts should not be increased.

Victims' families, who intervened in the proceedings, argued that the compensation they received was inadequate. The State reported that victims had collectively received around Rs 11 lakh from various sources, including Rs 5 lakh from the Chief Minister's Discretionary Fund, Rs 4 lakh from the State Disaster Response Fund, and Rs 2 lakh from the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. However, some families disputed receiving the Rs 2 lakh from the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, leading the court to direct the Union government to verify these claims. This ongoing scrutiny underscores the importance of the Allahabad HC uniform compensation policy UP fire directive.

Beyond the broader policy directive, the court also addressed the specific plight of a 25-year-old injured individual. This victim was undergoing continuous treatment at King George's Medical University, incurring monthly expenses of approximately Rs 70,000. Despite these significant costs, the individual had only received Rs 50,000 in compensation. The court noted that the incident appeared to have resulted from factors beyond mere accident, implying a degree of state responsibility.

This particular case highlights the urgent need for a consistent and fair approach to State compensation outside natural calamity scenarios. The court's detailed attention to both systemic issues and individual hardships emphasizes the comprehensive nature of its directive, aiming to create a more just and equitable system for all affected by such tragic events in Uttar Pradesh.

Lawyers advising clients on compensation claims against the Uttar Pradesh government for incidents outside natural calamities should monitor the development of this new uniform policy. This directive aims to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory payouts, potentially establishing a clearer framework for future compensation assessments and challenges.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law