Date:27/12/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/27/stories/2008122759760300.htm

New Delhi

High Court dismisses Ansal brothers’ contention

Staff Reporter

“Not liable for the fire havoc as power transformer was installed by DVB”

“Decisions beyond doubt attributable to the two accused -- Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal”
“Installation of second transformer was illegal act and increased the risk”

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the contention of the Ansal brothers that they are not liable for the tragic fire in the Uphaar cinema hall because it was the then Delhi Vidyut Board that had installed the power transformer from where the fire originated.

Counsel for Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal had throughout the trial of the Uphaar fire tragedy case as well as subsequently in the Delhi High Court taken the stand they were not liable for the tragedy on the basis of the same contention.

As many as 59 people were suffocated to death in the devastating fire while watching the Hindi movie “Border” on June 13, 1997.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of the High Court in his judgment pronounced recently on appeals by the convicts in the case held that “the positioning of the transformer and permitting it to be installed was a voluntary action without any element of coercion and without authority of law since no permission was obtained in that regard from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the licensing authority”.

The judgment has enumerated “eight most crucial decisions of the company owning the hall which had direct link with the deaths of 59 patrons and grievous injury to 100 others”.

It said that “these decisions are beyond any question or doubt attributable to the first two accused, Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal”.

These decision were: installation of a DVB transformer contrary to sanctioned plan and without permission or approval of the licensing authority and the MCD; absence of fire safety measures within the transformer room, again contrary to regulations; structural deviations in the cinema hall; use of several portions of the cinema hall for commercial purposes; negligent management of parking; decisions taken to completely shut the right side gangway in the balcony, that reduced the number of gangways, and correspondingly increase the seats and also crucially blocked the right exit; failure to ensure proper supervision within the cinema at the time of the show contrary to the mandate of the Delhi Cinematography Rules, 1953, and the Delhi Cinematography Rules, 1981; and failure to ensure functioning fire safety equipment that would have at the same time warned the patrons to leave the cinema hall immediately upon the outbreak of fire or an emergency and also facilitate their escape through proper lighting.

“Thus the installation of the second transformer without authorisation, an illegal act itself, increased the risk so far as patrons were concerned. Similarly outsourcing the parking to someone without any operational control or no direction created a further hazard. The closure of the right side gangway, decrease in the number of gangways, increase in the number of seats, all in the balcony and the blockage of the right side exit, “stacked” these risks to unacceptable proportions,” the Judge held.