Date:12/04/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/04/12/stories/2008041257830300.htm

Andhra Pradesh

Accidents point to contractors’ negligence Law and Order

A motorcyclist’s death and that of two others in the flyover collapse has similarities, writes Marri Ramu

There are lot of similarities between two fatal ‘accident’ cases reported in Punjagutta police station jurisdiction last year.

The first one occurred on May 21, 2007 when a motorcyclist G. Kiran Kumar died after a steel sign board, crashed on him in heavy wind, on Monappa Island-Greenlands stretch. Nearly four months later, girders of the flyover under construction at Punjagu tta collapsed leaving two persons dead and several injured.

Criminal cases were registered in connection with both the incidents under Section 304-A (rash and negligent act resulting in death) of Indian Penal Code. Both the ‘accidents’ occurred while the flyovers were being built. Negligence of contractors was alleged in both cases. The paradox is while the Detective Department arrested six persons, including two water board officials, stating that their negligence had resulted in the girder collapse, the Punjagutta police are still groping in the dark to ascertain who is responsible for Kumar’s death.

Steel signboards were kept in a row on the Monappa Island-Greenlands road acting as divider to ensure that commuters did not fall into the trenches dug up to lay pillars for the flyover.

One of the eye-witnesses said the board that hit the motorcyclist was kept rather carelessly on the road.

The contractor should have nailed down the board to ensure it did not fall off, slide or get swept away.

If the Punjagutta police had any doubts, they could consult any contractor or government engineer about the standard practices adopted for public safety while undertaking such huge constructions.

Compensation ensured

The Punjagutta police claim that they ensured that the motorcyclist’s family got compensation from the company building the flyover.

Does that justify the delay in finalising the case?

Even if compensation is paid, how can the investigators confirm there is no negligence on the part of the company responsible for keeping the board on the road?