 "NGT asks Alaknanda Hydro Power to pay Rs 9.26 cr")
In a landmark judgment, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has held Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. - GVK liable for payment of compensation for lack of proper care in storing muck from a construction project, which allowed the material to flow during the floods in Srinagar, District Pauri, Uttarakhand in June 2013.
The tribunal's 19 August adjudication comes on an application filed against Alaknanda by Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti (the Samiti), a body formed to take up issues related to compensations for people affected by the 2013 floods that devastated the area.
The Samiti had approached the green tribunal claiming damages against Alaknanda for dumping large amounts of muck around the site of its 330MW Srinagar Hydroelectric Project without proper precautionary measures to secure the debris from flowing in the event of a flood.
When approached for compensation for the incident, Alaknanda had taken the defense that the incident was vis major (an act of god) and even otherwise, that the victims of the floods were not entitled to any damages from the company as they had already received payouts by the Uttarakhand government for the disaster.
Before the tribunal, Alaknanda reiterated its former stance and maintained that it was the cloudburst that had caused the Alaknanda River to change course and overflow, leading to the disbursement of muck in the region and even cited a Supreme Court adjudication along these lines.
The Supreme Court had earlier termed the floods as a natural tragedy in a 2013 petition challenging environmental clearance norms and disaster management policies of the Uttarakhand government.
During the proceedings, the company also took an additional defense that the NGT could not adjudicate compensation on the occurrence as the incident did not fall under the definition of an 'accident', as per Section 2 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as it did not involve a 'hazardous substance', as contemplated by the law.
Negating Alaknanda's stance, the NGT referred to the Supreme Court determination which had mentioned that storage of muck in the area had not been undertaken properly and adjudicated compensation under the head of 'no fault liability' as per Section 17(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
The tribunal also rejected Alaknanda's vis major plea, and directed the company to pay Rs 9,26,42,795 (around Rs 9.26 crore) with 30 days as compensation into the Emergency Relief Fund Authority, to be paid to the victims affected by the incident.
One percent of this sum is to be deducted and remitted to the Registrar of the NGT under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Rules, 2011 and the remaining amount is to be distributed by the District Magistrate of Pauri by deputing a Sub Divisional Magistrate after verifying the claims.
The tribunal has made an order asking the State of Uttarakhand to issue a direction in this regard, while also determining additional sums of Rs 1 lakh each, to be paid to the Samiti and Bharat Jhunjhunwala (a respondent and resident of the area who joined the petition).
The tribunal's 19 August adjudication comes on an application filed against Alaknanda by Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti (the Samiti), a body formed to take up issues related to compensations for people affected by the 2013 floods that devastated the area.
The Samiti had approached the green tribunal claiming damages against Alaknanda for dumping large amounts of muck around the site of its 330MW Srinagar Hydroelectric Project without proper precautionary measures to secure the debris from flowing in the event of a flood.
Also Read
On 16th and 17th of June 2013, the Srinagar area was hit by a cloudburst causing wide-spread flooding which lead to an eight foot high wall of muck from the hydroelectric site to be deposited around the surrounding area causing large losses to property - and even life.
When approached for compensation for the incident, Alaknanda had taken the defense that the incident was vis major (an act of god) and even otherwise, that the victims of the floods were not entitled to any damages from the company as they had already received payouts by the Uttarakhand government for the disaster.
Before the tribunal, Alaknanda reiterated its former stance and maintained that it was the cloudburst that had caused the Alaknanda River to change course and overflow, leading to the disbursement of muck in the region and even cited a Supreme Court adjudication along these lines.
The Supreme Court had earlier termed the floods as a natural tragedy in a 2013 petition challenging environmental clearance norms and disaster management policies of the Uttarakhand government.
During the proceedings, the company also took an additional defense that the NGT could not adjudicate compensation on the occurrence as the incident did not fall under the definition of an 'accident', as per Section 2 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as it did not involve a 'hazardous substance', as contemplated by the law.
Negating Alaknanda's stance, the NGT referred to the Supreme Court determination which had mentioned that storage of muck in the area had not been undertaken properly and adjudicated compensation under the head of 'no fault liability' as per Section 17(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
The tribunal also rejected Alaknanda's vis major plea, and directed the company to pay Rs 9,26,42,795 (around Rs 9.26 crore) with 30 days as compensation into the Emergency Relief Fund Authority, to be paid to the victims affected by the incident.
One percent of this sum is to be deducted and remitted to the Registrar of the NGT under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Rules, 2011 and the remaining amount is to be distributed by the District Magistrate of Pauri by deputing a Sub Divisional Magistrate after verifying the claims.
The tribunal has made an order asking the State of Uttarakhand to issue a direction in this regard, while also determining additional sums of Rs 1 lakh each, to be paid to the Samiti and Bharat Jhunjhunwala (a respondent and resident of the area who joined the petition).