National Green Tribunal
Chandr Pal Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 30 January, 2026
Item No. 20 Court No. 1
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 26/2025
(I.A. No. 62/2026 and 39/2025)
Chandr Pal Singh Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 30.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Hasil Jain & Mr. Shaiem Hasan, Advs.
Respondent: Mr. Ankit Verma, Adv. for the State of UP.
Mr. Amit Shukla, Mr. Atul Mishra & Mr. Utsav Pokhriyal, Advs. for
UPPCB.
ORDER
1. In this original application, the applicant has claimed compensation for the death of his two minor children on 14.07.2023 due to drowning in the pit illegally dug beyond the permissible limit by Respondent No 4, for excavating the brick earth for his nearby brick kiln .
2. The applicant had pleaded that Respondent No. 4 had dug up the agricultural field which was filled up with the rainwater, and the children while playing, had confused it with a normal agricultural field filled with rainwater and had entered into it unaware of the fact that the depth of the pit was around 15 feet. It had been further pleaded that the pit was without any fencing and in that incident following two children of the applicant had drowned and died:
A. Amol aged 6 years, son of the applicant B. Madhu aged 8 years, daughter of the applicant.
3. Further plea of the applicant is that the Respondent No. 4 could not have created a pit and extracted soil beyond permissible limit of two 1 meters i.e. approximately 6.5 feet as provided under the U.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 2021 and that since Respondent No. 4 has violated the environmental norms as a result of which the applicant has suffered the environmental damage in the form of death of his two children, applicant is entitled for the suitable compensation for the same. The applicant has also submitted that Respondent No. 4 has violated the O.M. dated 24.06.2013.
4. In pursuance to the direction of the Tribunal, the reply on behalf of the UPPCB and District Magistrate, Rampur has been filed.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has referred to the material on record in support of the plea that the death had taken place on account of the drowning in the illegally dug up pits by the Respondent No. 4 in the process of extracting the soil for the brick kiln without the requisite permissions and clearances.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on the perusal of the record it is noticed that after the incident the District Magistrate, Rampur had constituted a Joint Committee which had inspected the site and also the brick kiln and found that the brick kiln was setup illegally and that illegal mining was done from Gata No. 314 for which the FIR dated 19.07.2023 was registered. The District Magistrate, Rampur along with his reply affidavit dated 10.09.2025 had enclosed the Joint Committee Report which discloses as under:
"3. निरीक्षण के समय उपस्थित ईट भट्ठा प्रनतनिनि श्री खुर्शीद खाि द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कक उिके ईट भट्ठे का संचालि कायय ववगत 01 वर्य 06 माह से पूणत य ः बन्द है । इस संबंि में ईट भट्ठा थिल गाटा सं0 324, ग्राम खाता नचन्तामि, तहसील नमलक, जिपद रामपुर के थवामी श्री इन्र खााँ पुत्र मो० हुसेि खााँ, निवासी ग्राम खाता नचन्तामि, तहसील नमलक, जिपद रामपुर द्वारा र्शपिपत्र कदिांक 20.02.2025 इस कायायलय में प्रथतुत ककया गया है , स्जसके माध्यम से र्शपिपूवक य बयाि ककये गये हैं कक ईट भट्ठे का संचालि ववगत 01 वर्य 06 माह 2 से बन्द है , र्शपि पत्र कदिांक 20.02.2025 की छायाप्रनत संलग्िक-01 पर संलग्ि है ।
4. निरीक्षण के दौराि उपस्थित ईट भट्ठा प्रनतनिनि श्री खुर्शीद खाि द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कक उिके वानलद श्री इन्र खााँ पुत्र मो० हुसेि खााँ, निवासी ग्राम खाता नचन्तामि, तहसील नमलक, जिपद रामपुर द्वारा उक्त ईट भट्ठे के थिल गाटा सं० 334 (रकबा 1.0800 है 0) को श्री अब्दल ु खानलक पुत्र श्री हाजी अब्दल ु सत्तार व मो० र्शरीफ पुत्र श्री अहसाि करीम, निवासी ग्राम र्शीर्शगढ, तहसील मीरगंज, जिपद बरे ली को वर्य 2014 में भट्ठे की थिापिा कर संचालि करिे हे तु 10 वर्ों की अवनि हे तु ककराये पर कदया गया िा, ककरायेिामे की छायाप्रनत संलग्िक-02 पर संलग्ि है ।
अयेतर उपस्थित प्रनतनिनि श्री खुर्शीद खाि द्वारा यह भी अवगत कराया गया कक घकटत घटिा माह जुलाई 2023 के दौराि भी ईट भटठे का संचालि श्री अब्दल ु खानलक पुत्र श्री हाजी अब्दल ु सत्तार व मो० र्शरीफ पुत्र श्री अहसाि करीम, निवासी ग्राम र्शीर्शगढ़, तहसील मीरगंज, जिपद बरे ली द्वारा ककया जा रहा िा।
5. क्षेत्रीय कायायलय, उ०प्र० प्रदर् ू ण नियंत्रण बोर्य , मुरादाबाद में उपलब्ि अनभलेखािुसार उक्त ईट भट्ठे का पूवय में क्षेत्रीय कायायलय द्वारा ककये गये निरीक्षण कदिांक 19.01.2024 के दौराि ईट भट्ठा थिल उ०प्र० र्शासि द्वारा अनिसूनचत "ईट भट्ठा (थिापिा हे तु थिल मापदण्र्) नियमावली 27 जूि, 2012 की उपववनियों के अिुरूप ि होिे के कारण क्षेत्रीय कायायलय के पत्रांक 105/सी- 9/रामपुर कदिांक 23.01.2024 द्वारा बोर्य मुख्यालय को प्रेवर्त संथतुनत के क्रम में बोर्य मुख्यालय के पत्रांक एच 07022/सी-7/ए-2005/2024 कदिांक 15.02.2024 द्वारा ईट भट्ठे के ववरूद्ध कारण बताओ िोकटस जारी ककया गया िा, कारण बताओ िोकटस की छायाप्रनत संलग्िक-03 पर संलग्ि है ।
6. उक्त के अनतररक्त क्षेत्रीय कायायलय, उ०प्र० प्रदर् ू ण नियंत्रण बोर्य , मुरादाबाद में उपलब्ि अनभलेखािुसार, क्षेत्रीय कायायलय द्वारा उक्त ईट भट्ठे का पुिः ककये गये निरीक्षण कदिांक 21.12.2024 के दौराि ईट भट्ठे को संचालि हे तु प्रयासरत पाये जािे के दृविगत क्षेत्रीय कायायलय, उ०प्र० प्रदर् ू ण नियंत्रण बोर्य , मुरादाबाद के पत्रांक 1571/सी-9/रामपुर कदिांक 24.12.2024 के माध्यम से बोर्य मुख्यालय, लखिऊ को प्रेवर्त संथतुनत के कम में बोर्य मुख्यालय के पत्रांक एच 24657/सी-7/ वायु- 2005/2024-25 कदिांक 25.02.2025 के माध्यम से वायु (प्रदर् ू ण निवारण एवं नियंत्रण) अनिनियम 1981 की िारा 31ए के अन्तगयत बन्दी आदे र्श जारी ककया गया है , जोकक वतयमाि में प्रभावी है , बन्दी आदे र्श की छायाप्रनत संलग्िक-04 पर संलग्ि है ।
7. निरीक्षण के दौराि मौके पर उपस्थित राजथव निरीक्षक, ईट भट्ठा प्रनतनिनि एवं थिािीय ग्रामीणों द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कक उक्त संदनभयत ईट भट्ठे द्वारा पूवय में वर्य 2023 में कच्ची ईंटो की पिाई ईट भट्ठे के पस्िम कदर्शा में ईट भट्ठे से लगभग 270 मी0 की अिुमानित दरू ी पर ग्राम खाता नचन्तामि के समीपथि गाटा सं० 314 (रकबा 1.0480 है ०) पर (अक्षांर्श 28.682777, दे र्शान्तर 3 79.152962) नमट्टी का खिि कायय / कच्ची ईटों की पिाई का कायय ककया गया िा। गाटा सं० 314 (रकबा 1.0480 है 0) की खतौिी की छायाप्रनत संलग्िक-05 पर संलग्ि है ।
8. क्षेत्रीय कायायलय, उ०प्र० प्रदर् ू ण नियंत्रण बोर्य , मुरादाबाद में उपलब्ि अनभलेखों के अिुसार उक्त संदनभयत ईट भट्ठे को कच्ची ईंटो की पिाई हे तु कर्स्थिक्ट लेवल इन्वायरमेन्ट इम्पैक्ट एनससमेन्ट अिॉररटी, रामपुर द्वारा निगयत पयायवरणीय थवीकृ नत उपलब्ि िहीं है । उक्त के सम्बन्ि में सादर अवगत करािा है कक र्शासिादे र्श संख्या-446/81-7-2020-39 (पयाय)/2017 टी0सी0-1, कदिांक- 01.05.2020 के द्वारा पयायवरणीय अिापवत्त की अनिवाययता में प्रदे र्श में थिावपत ईंट भटठों को निम्िािसार छट प्रदाि की गयी है -"
7. During the Joint Inspection, it has been found that Gata No. 314 is located at the approx. distance of 270 meter of Respondent No. 4 brick kiln and that for extracting the soil for the brick kiln, illegal mining beyond the permissible limit in Gata No. 314 was done by Respondent No. 4 and the consequential pit created filed up the rain water wherein no fencing was done and no warning board was put, on account of which the above two children had accidently entered in it and died due to drowning.
8. The Respondent - UPPCB in its reply affidavit dated 23.01.2026 has disclosed that the Respondent No. 4 had not obtained any permission CTE or CTO. The disclosure so made by the UPPCB as under:
"5. It is submitted that the project proponent has never obtained any permissions/CTE/CTO from the Board and has been operating without environment permissions."
9. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also referred to the FIR dated 19.07.2023 which was made soon after the incident disclosing details of the incident, which corroborate the finding recorded by the Joint Committee. He has also referred to the post mortem report of Amol and Madhu to point out that the death had taken place on account of the drowning.
410. Learned Counsel appearing for the UPPCB has drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the details of the mining conducted by the Respondent No. 4 as contained in the communication of the Mining Officer, Rampur dated 14.01.2026, page 168. The said details are as under:
" क्र0 ईट-भट्ठा ं पायों की साधारण / जिजियमि िमा का चालाि संख्या ि जििांक सत्र संख्या जिक िैक शुल्क सं0 1 2015- 21 साधारण 1,89,758/- चालाि सख्ं या -20045 जििाक ं 16 26.02.2016, चालाि संख्या-20046 जििांक 26.02.2016 2 2016- 21 साधारण - -17
3 2017- 21 साधारण 1,74,368/- चालाि संख्या-02 जििांक 12.02.2018 18 4 2018- 21 साधारण 1,55,900/- चालाि संख्या-32 जििांक 30.03.2019 19 5 2019- 21 साधारण 1,71,290/- चालाि सख्ं या -71 जििाक ं 25.11.2019, 20 चालाि संख्या-23 जििांक 07.01.2020 6 2020- 21 साधारण 1,71,290/- चालाि संख्या-14 जििांक 17.10.2020 21 7 2021- 21 साधारण 1,71,290/- चालाि संख्या-07 जििांक 09.11.2021 22 8 2022- - - - -23
9 2023- - - - -24
10 2024- - - - -25
11 2025- - - - - "26
11. The above table indicates that the Respondent No. 4 had continued with mining from 2015 to 2022, though he was not having any CTE, CTO or requisite clearance from the UPPCB.
12. The above material clearly indicates that the Respondent No. 4 was operating illegally and it had by doing illegal mining dug up pit without 5 any safeguard, resulting in the death of the children of the applicant.
Hence, in view of orders earlier passed by the Tribunal, the applicant is entitled to receive the environmental damage compensation.
13. The Tribunal in the matter of Hussain Ahamad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. up while passing the order dated 18.04.2024 in O.A. No. 604/2023 had examined this issue and referred to the earlier judgment on the point and had held as under:
"14. Hence, it is clear that death of five children had taken place on account of their accidental drowning in the pits dug up by respondent nos. 5 and 6 while illegally extracting the soil beyond the permissible limit and these pits were filled with rain water and mud, hence were not visible, which resulted into the accidental death. It was a failure of the project proponents for not reclaiming the mined areas and also leaving it unfenced.
15. Under section 15(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "NGT Act"), the Tribunal has the power to grant relief and compensation to the victims of environmental damage. In terms of sub-section (2) of section 15, the relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred in various sub-clauses of sub-section (1) is in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Under section 17(1) of the NGT Act, where death of, or injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property or environment results from an accident or the adverse impact of an activity or operation or process, under any of the scheduled enactment, the person responsible is liable to pay such relief or compensation for such death, injury or damage, under all or any of the heads specified in Schedule II, as determined by the Tribunal. Schedule II of NGT Act includes death, permanent, temporary, total or partial disability or other injury or sickness. It also covers medical expenses incurred for treatment of injuries or sickness and expenses incurred by the Government or any local authority in providing relief, aid and rehabilitation to the affected persons.
16. The Tribunal in OA No. 885/2022, In re: News item in India TV dated 02.12.2022 titled "Chhattisgarh: Seven dead as part of limestone mine collapse in Bastar Village" vide order dated 17.05.2023 has considered in detail the issue of awarding compensation to the victims of mining accident. In that order, the Tribunal has also considered the judgment on the issue of awarding compensation to the family members of deceased persons on account of illegal mining attracting the Principle of Absolute Liability. The Tribunal in the above matter in this regard has held as under:-
"7. It is clear from the report that death of six persons has taken place due to collapse of soil bed in the course of excavation of soil. The report mentions that accident site area has been fenced with sign board of restricted area. The excavation activities are prohibited in the area.6
8. Though the Committee has failed to identify the violator, there is no dispute that death is in the course of illegal excavation. There is a failure on the part of State machinery in preventing such hazardous activities and also identifying the persons undertaking such activities. In such situation, there is no reason to deprive the heirs of the deceased from just compensation to be paid by the State with liberty to recover the same from violators. While primary liability for such deaths is of the persons undertaking illegal excavation activities, State cannot avoid its responsibility for safety of human lives for failure of its vigilance and regulatory mechanism. It appears that acknowledging this responsibility, the State has given some amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 4 lakhs in respect of each death which cannot by any standard be considered to be adequate. Even on adhoc basis and in absence of particulars of loss of earning, compensation in such cases has to be atleast Rs. 20 lakhs for each death.This is the view taken by this Tribunal in number of cases, including vide order dated 28.03.2023 in OA No. 204/2023, In re:News item published in Newspaper The Hindu dated 07.03.2023 titled "Three children die during illegal mining in West Bengal".The Tribunal held:
"xxx .................................xxx.......................................xxx
5. The Tribunal has dealt with number of cases of deaths and injuries to victims by failure to follow environmental norms and enforce right to environment which is part of right to life, heirs of the deceased and the victims have been held entitled to compensation on the principle of absolute liability arising out of doing hazardous commercial activity. Though such liability basically is of violator of law, where law violator is not made to pay compensation, the State has also been held to be liable to pay compensation as per its duty as welfare State to protect the citizen and also for failure to take steps to protect the citizens against hazardous illegal activities to prevent which is duty of the State. The Tribunal has acted consistently with parens patriae duty of the State in terms of law laid down inter alia in MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 and Vadodra Municipal Corporation v. Purshottam v. Murjani & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 14. Some of the observations from Supreme Court judgements are:
"T.N. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. State of T.N., (2017) 6 SCC 734 The State stands on the position of a loco parentis to the citizens and when there are so 7 many deaths of farmers in the State of Tamil Nadu, it becomes obligatory on the part of the State to express concern and sensitiveness to do the needful and not allow the impecunious and poverty-stricken farmers to resign to their fate or leave the downtrodden and the poor to yield to the idea of fatalism. The concept is alien in the welfare State and the social justice which is required to be translated in a democratic body polity. As is manifest from the assertions and the grievances that have been agitated, deaths are due to famine backdrop and other natural causes and also due to immense financial problem. The State, as the guardian, is required to see how to solve these problems or to meet the problems by taking curative measures treating it as a natural disaster. Silence is not the answer.
MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn.,
(2011) 14 SCC 481
The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compensation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations Compensatory damages are intended to provide the claimant with a monetary amount necessary to recoup/replace what was lost, since damages in tort are generally awarded to place the claimants in the position he would have been in, had the tort not taken place; which are generally quantified under the heads of general damages and special damages. Punitive damages are intended to reform or to deter the wrongdoer from indulging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis for the claim. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the claimant which he can claim in an ordinary private law claim in tort. Punitive damages are awarded by the constitutional court when the wrongdoer's conduct was egregiously deceitful."
6. We may also refer to some earlier orders of the Tribunal dealing with industrial and other accidents on account of violation of environmental norms in the State of West Bengal, where the Tribunal awarded compensation to the victims. Some extract from order dated 18.12.2020 in O.A. No. 272/2020, News item published in the "Times 8 of India" dated 20.11.2020 entitled "Six killed as blast tears through Malda Plastic recycling factory" is reproduced below:-
"xxx.................................xxx........................ ......xxx
6. The Tribunal dealt with the issue by requiring payment of compensation to the victims, restoration of environment and adopting suitable safety measures to avoid such recurrence in the light of Expert Committee reports. In the present case, the State PCB has acknowledged that the activity was illegal and the unit has now been found to be demolished. This cannot be sufficient step for enforcement of law and for remedy to the victims. The Tribunal fixed minimum interim compensation in such cases at Rs. 15 Lakhs in case of death, Rs. 5 Lakhs in case of serious injury and Rs. 2.5 Lakhs for simple injuries as follows:
"6. ... we assess interim compensation for death to be 15 lacs each (taking into account multiplier of around 16 and loss of earning of about one lac a year, taking the minimum wage, apart from conventional sums), for grievous injury Rs. 5 lac per person, for other injuries of persons hospitalized Rs. 2.5 lac per person and for displacement at Rs. 25000/- per person."
7. The State is under obligation to secure atleast this amount of compensation to the victims and if it is not able to do so, the State must pay this much amount of compensation out of its own funds, with liberty to recover the same from the persons responsible for the situation.
8. Accordingly, we direct the District Magistrate, Malda to give compensation in above terms to the victims within three months out of the State funds, excluding the amount already paid. It will be open to the District Magistrate to recover the amount from the concerned violators by taking coercive measures, as per law. The victims will be at liberty to seek any other relief in appropriate proceedings. This direction is without prejudice to the criminal liability of the management and the operators of such activities."
97. In the present case, death of the children is patently due to violation of established norms. The State Authorities failed to enforce the law and prevent the incident. Apart from illegal engagement of children, the mining in the river bank is not shown to be by any Authority of Law, such as, mining lease, replenishment study, DSR and Environment Clearance. No safeguards have been used in the process. Thus, the State cannot escape liability for violation of environmental norms. While primary liability is of the persons engaged in illegal mining on 'Absolute Principle' laid down in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 395, when the violators have not been made to pay, it is the liability of the State to pay the compensation and recover the same from the violators. Liability for compensation is in addition to liability under the Criminal Law.
8. Further, vide order dated 11.06.2021 passed in O.A. No. 44/2021 titled as In re: News item published in The News Indian Express dated 12.02.2021 titled "At least 19 dead in Virudhunagar firecracker factory blast, more than 30 injured" the Tribunal held:-
"xxx.................................xxx.........................xxx
9. ...Compensation can be assessed on reasonable basis guided by restitution principle atleast at floor level, leaving other remedies of the victims open. Thus, broadly agreeing with the Committee, we direct that the scale of compensation should be Rs.20 lakhs in respect of each of the deceased victims and Rs.15 lakhs to persons who have burns in excess of 50% and Rs.10 lakhs for persons who have burns from 25 to 50% and Rs.5 lakhs for persons who have injuries between 5 to 25%. Victims who were treated as outpatients and who had but minor degree of burns or other forms of simple injuries shall be paid Rs.2 lakhs."
9. The Tribunal had dealt with series of industrial and accidental matters directing environmental compensation for deceased and injured in recent past
10. In view of above, we direct the District Magistrate, Siliguri/Darjeeling to ensure payment of compensation @ ₹20 Lakh each to the heirs of the deceased and ₹5 Lakh to the injured, after deducting the amount already paid. The payment may be made within one month and make the violators accountable under Environmental Law be taken simultaneously at the earliest.
1011. The State PCB may exercise its regulatory authority under the environmental laws - the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules 1986, in coordination with any other concerned authority."
9. Accordingly, we direct that the District Magistrate, Bastar may disburse further amount of Rs. 16 lakhs to the heirs of each of the deceased and Rs. 2 lakhs each to the injured within one month from today. It will be open to the District Magistrate to identify the violators and proceed against them in accordance with law, including for recovery of compensation. The State may review its vigilance and regulatory regime to prevent such incidents in future."
17. In the above matter, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹20 lakhs to the family members of the deceased and ₹2 lakhs to the injured persons finding that the originally awarded compensation amount of ₹4 lakhs in respect of each death could not be considered to be adequate by any standard, even on adhoc basis and in absence of particulars of loss of earning, compensation in such cases has to be at least ₹20 lakhs for each death. The Tribunal has also noted its earlier judgments taking the same view.
18. The Tribunal in OA No. 66/2022 in the matter of K. Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, vide order dated 16.01.2023 had taken note of the norms of payment of compensation in para 7(b) as under:-
"......
b. Norms for compensation
1. The compensation that is payable for victims of the tragedy could never be arbitrary. The need to compensate or right to secure compensation could themselves be not a matter of debate at all. Only the scale of compensation and the persons who would become liable to pay the compensation will require to be appraised.
2. There are several compensation regimes for deaths and injuries and different enactments which are dis- similar and grossly variant. The Workmen Compensation Act, which is surely applicable, provides compensation that will have scales of compensation determined on the age and the income of the workman. The liability shall be on the principal employer. Here the problem is that the licensee has sub-leased the premises to three different persons whom we have named above but have not gathered statements from any one of them since they appear to be in judicial custody after arrest, pending 11 investigation into criminal offences instituted against them
3. The Public Liability Insurance Act casts an absolute liability, caps the entitlement to a paltry sum of Rs.50,000/- for death and Rs.25,000/- for grievous injury. It cannot be efficacious to look for relief under the said Act.
4. The scales of compensation under different enactments for transport accidents as in Carriage by Air Act, Railways & Motor Vehicles Act are different. In the first three enactments set out, there is absolute liability and the compensation ranges between Rs.8 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs. The Motor Vehicles Act contemplates three regimes: absolute liability under Section 140, prescribing Rs.2 lakhs for death, Rs.50,000/- for grievous injuries and compensation up to Rs.800,000/- under a structured formula of strict liability norm under Section 163A. Just compensation under Section 166 is what is most scientific and driven essentially through two decisions in Sarla Varma Vs. DTC - (2009) 6 SCC 121 and as modified by National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi - (2017) 16 SCC 680. The compensation is determined based on a multiplier formula which will be applied against the multiplicand that is quantified as the likely contribution to the family by the deceased victim. The conventional heads of claims, such as, loss to estate, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium towards spouse, funeral expenses are all added. In the amendment contemplated by Amendment Act 32 of 2019, the minimum threshold amount that will become payable shall be not less than Rs.5 lakhs for fatal accident and Rs.2 lakhs for grievous injuries.
5. In traumatic accidents such as bomb blasts or fire accidents due to electrocution or terrorist activities, public law remedies have been resorted to, where the compensation shall not always be made to depend on the age of the victims and the number of dependents. They are invariably fixed sums within the broad age brackets, such as persons less than 20 years of age and above the said age limit. In MCD Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association - (2011) 14 SCC at page 481 - the compensation was fixed at Rs.10 lakhs in the case of those aged more than 20 years and Rs.7.5 lakhs to those aged less than 20 years and compensation of Re.1 lakh was awarded to each of the injured victims. The amount carried interest at 9%.
6. In Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Vs. Union of India & Others, a Division Bench of the P & H High Court provided compensation by examining the recommendations of the One-man Commission that 12 elicited details about the age of the victims, the number of dependents of each of them, the income of the deceased persons, in amounts ranging between Rs.1 lakh and Rs.15 lakhs. The decision of the Division Bench passed in CWP 13214 of 1996 through its decision on 09.11.2009, was confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in - (2013) 10 SCC at page 494. In Sanjay Gupta v State of UP (2015)5 SCC 283, the Supreme Court was dealing with an incident of devastating fire that broke out in a Consumer Show held at Victoria Park, Meerut. It was organised by a private company through contractors engaged by them after seeking permission from the State Government. It resulted in death of 64 persons and grievous injuries to several others. The Commission of Enquiry found the State and its authorities to be prima facie responsible for statutory violations while granting permission and during the show. No doubt, in this case there was no violation of any law in the grant of licence, but there had been a lack of care to see that the premises had been used only by the persons who held the licence.
7. In Sanjay Gupta (Supra) the Supreme Court had taken note of the compensation awarded in Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association case, decided in 2011 as well as Dabwali fire tragedy case, decided in 2013. They observed that the State Government should see that the victims did not remain in a constant state of suffering and despair and interim compensation of Rs.30 lakhs was directed to be paid, which subsequently through a direction issued in the same case and reported in (2018) SCC 634, to be distributed on pro-rata basis through the Jurisdictional District Judge.
8. There have been other earlier decisions of the Supreme Court when fixed sums have been awarded through public law remedy. In what was referred as boat tragedy case dealing with deaths of children due to boat capsize in MS Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood (2001) 8 SCC 151, the court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 5 lakhs for each child and on the recommendations of former Chief Justice Chandrachud's report in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar in (2001) 8 SCC at page 187-the compensation ranged between Rs.2 lakhs per child and an amount upto Rs.5 laksh per adult. To persons who had burn injuries to the extent of 10% or below, the Supreme Court awarded, in modification of the Chief Justice's Report, a minimum amount of Rs.2 lakhs.
9. In all the cases before us, we do not have data of the number of dependents for the deceased persons. In respect of injuries, a few have been treated as out-
patients and immediately discharged while some persons are still undergoing treatment. The percentage of burns have varied from 5% to 75%. Unfortunately, among the injured victims, there have been casualties 13 during the treatment, for on as late as 05.04.2021, the tally of dead was 27. In this accident, there is no report of any child as having been injured or dead. We confronted only a few persons who are injured and who are less than 18 years of age. We do not think it would be proper for us to assess compensation for everyone by eliciting the age, income, etc. It will be appropriate to take the examples of lumpsum amounts awarded through public law remedies and allow for independent rights to be pursued by any victim through statutory forums prescribed under the Workmen Compensation Act, if so advised. The Workmen Compensation Act itself does not recognise any payment other than through the Commissioner and any compensation that we will recommend could be directed to be paid to the party under notice to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner so that they are not treated as amounts awarded by 'contracting out'. In the decisions which we have referred, the ex-gratia payment made by the government will not be required to be deducted. On the other hand, we believe that the State Government shall take responsibility for 10% of liability for lack of effective supervision through Inspector of Factories and 10% on the Central Government for their failure to implement the safety laws. Rest of the 80% shall be levied on the licensee and his lessees jointly and severally and the 10% each as we have fixed on the Central and State Governments shall be several. One of us, (Kulkarni) is of the view that on account of the quoted provision of immunity, the payment by the State and the Centre shall be by way of contribution in gratis rather than responsibility by default. Further, as per rule 2(37) of the aforesaid rules, the occupier who has the control and who is responsible for managing the affairs of premises is solely responsible for the accident for the violations of rules and conditions of the licence.
10. Taking note of the fact that in the Uphaar tragedy victims case the maximum compensation was Rs.10 lakhs, but it related to an incident that took place in 1997, almost 25 years back, we will double the compensation for death at Rs.20 lakhs per family of each of the deceased victims and Rs.15 lakhs to persons who have burns in excess of 50% and Rs.10 lakhs for persons who have burns from 25 to 50% and Rs.5 lakhs for persons who have injuries between 5 to 25%. Victims who were treated as outpatients and who had but minor degree of burns or other forms of simple injuries shall be paid Rs.2 lakhs. The amounts shall be directed to be paid within the time the Tribunal may set and direct a further liability of interest at 12% p.a. for default of payment. The compensation is not 14 merely a financial reparation for the loss of lives and injuries that have restitutive attributes but also designed to be punitive for the criminal negligence in carrying out hazardous activities in brazen violation of several laws that we have outlined above. The compensation amounts must necessarily therefore, be higher than what could occasion in a straightforward case of granting compensation as a welfare measure such as under the Workmen's (Employees') Compensation Act.
11. The amounts on the same scales could be made also to victims of accidents in the same district just before and after our visit XIII. REMEDIAL MEASURES TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS Sl Activity At whose instance No. 1 Video clips of safety through whatsApp and Central Government-
mobile devices apart from periodical workshops Explosives experts imparting norms of safety to be circulated to all State government-
employees Industrial safety
2 Strict vigilance to ensure conformity as regards PESO and District
working only in sheds and not in open spaces Revenue Authority
3 Drone surveillance of various sheds PESO and District
Revenue Authority
4 Submit the compliance of the occupier once in a Manufacturer/
six months or quarterly basis and mandated to be Licensee
uploaded on the public domain on the website of the respective regulatory agency.
5 Permanent closure of sheds which have in the Licensing authority past been found guilty of breaches.
6 Punitive fines of not less than Rs. 50 lacs for Licensing authority instances of violations of conditions of license such as grant of lease, sublease, employment of more personnel than authorised, use of banned chemicals etc. 7 Public liability insurance for all factories to be Collector made obligatory.
8 Group insurance providing for higher Licensing authority compensation of not less than Rs. 5,00,000 than the limit hitherto observed for Rs. 50,000. 9 Existing manpower of the various Central government regulatory authorities to be strengthened in order State Government to have periodical post clearance monitoring and ensure better compliance 10 Defaulting industries need to be Revenue Division of immediately inventoried and regulated the Collectorate within a time frame 11 Firecrackers' manufacturing and bulk storage Tamil Nadu Pollution facilities under the ambit of Consent Control Board Management within specified time frame as mandated 12 Occupational Health surveillance i.e., periodical Directorate of health check-up of the employees Industrial Safety and Health 13 Fire-fighting facilities such as dry powder State Fire Services extinguisher, soda ash, limestone etc. are in place to handle the accident in the Fireworks Industry/metal-based fire accident.
14 Provision for appropriate clothing, gloves, and Licensee
footwear
15 Increased automation that avoids physical Industrial
15
handling of dangerous chemicals and Entrepreneurs/Dept.
substances of Industries &
Commerce
16 Through CSR funds of the industries located in Licensing authorities
the district, more focus should be given to the For MSMEs &
development of education to the local communities Factories Ministry of
and their upliftment. Commerce/Company
Affairs
17 Crisis Management System and Co-ordination Central Government,
Committee constituted shall meet periodically and State Government
review effective monitoring mechanism and and District Collector
suggest measures for prevention and recurrence of such accidents.
18 As per section 9B of Explosive Act 1884 Legislature punishment for certain offences given is very moderate. The same requires legislative review for greater stringency.
19 Since the unit in which the accident occurred is no The respective more in a state to take manufacturing activity, the licensing authorities licence granted by PESO,NOC granted by District Authorities, Arms Act license for sulphur, factories Act license shall be cancelled.
20 The workers who are engaged in most hazardous Licensees/ employers operations viz. mixing, filling of chemicals, colour pellets making shall be certified after training and those alone shall be employed. The unit shall not functional unless these workers are certified. 21 To monitor the ambient air quality in all clusters of Tamil Nadu Pollution firework factories, minimum of two Continuous control Board Ambient Air Quality Stations shall be installed, through which impact on environment due to incidental explosion can be quantified. "
19. Having regard to the criteria which has been laid down by the orders of the Tribunal and considering the fact that in the present case also death of five children has taken place on account of the drowning in the pits dug-up by the respondent nos. 5 & 6 while illegally extracting soil beyond the permissible limit, the said respondent nos. 5 & 6 are liable to pay compensation to the extent of ₹20 lakhs to the family members of each deceased children and ₹2 lakhs to the injured. In the incident involving the respondent no. 5, M/s Maa Bhagwati Brick Kiln, three children had died, therefore, respondent no. 5 is liable to pay compensation of ₹ 20 lakh to family members of each deceased children. In the incident involving the respondent no. 6, M/s. Shree Ram Brick Kiln, two children had died. M/s. Shree Ram Brick Kiln has provided ₹1 lakh compensation each to the family of two deceased children, therefore, now it is liable to pay ₹19 lakhs each to the family members of each deceased children.
20. We are to direct that in terms of the above judgement, the amount will be disbursed at the first instance by the State Government then it will be open to the State Government to recover the same from the respondent nos. 5&6, respectively.
21. Let the above payments be made by the concerned District Magistrate to the family members of the victims within a period of two months from today and action taken report be submitted before the Registrar General of the Tribunal within three months.
22. OA is accordingly disposed of."16
14. Learned Counsel for the applicant has pointed that against this order Civil Appeal No. 8377/2024 was preferred by the brick kiln owner which has been disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 14.08.2025 in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
15. In the present case though, the Respondent No. 4 brick kiln has been served but it has not entered appearance and has not contested present OA.
16. Hence, we are of the view that the present OA also deserves to be allowed on the same terms as contained in order dated 18.04.2024 in O.A. No. 604/2023. The Tribunal by that order and other orders passed in similar circumstance, have awarded the environmental damage compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs for the family member of the deceased in case of each of the death which took place in the accident. It has been pointed out by the Counsel for the State that Rs. 4 lakh for each of the death has been paid to the family members of the deceased. Therefore, we direct that in terms of the above judgement, the balance amount of Rs. 16 lakh for each of the death will be paid to the family member of the deceased at the first instance by the State Government. Then, it will open for the State to recover the same from the Respondent No. 4.
17. Let the above payment be made by the concerned District Magistrate i.e Respondent No. 3 within a period of two months from today.
18. O.A. is accordingly disposed of.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM January 30, 2026 OA No. 26/2025 HB 17