Gujarat high court orders compensation to quake-hit school’s victims

A Gujarat high court bench has asked a school owner-cum-builder to pay Rs3.75 lakh as compensation to the kin of each of the 32 students who died at the school during the earthquake on January 26, 2001.

The 32 science stream students were buried alive in their classroom when the building of the Swaminarayan Vidyamandir school in Ghodasar, Ahmedabad, collapsed during the quake.

The students were attending extra classes that had been organised by the school after the flag hoisting ceremony for Republic Day.

The high court bench comprising justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari held Rambhao Patre and his two sons - all trustees of the school who had developed the school building - responsible for the tragedy.

The court ordered the school trustees to pay Rs3.75 lakh (along with 8% interest to be calculated from the day of the tragedy) to the kin of each of the deceased students.

The bench was hearing appeals filed by the school trustees and parents against a lower court order that had awarded Rs2 lakh compensation to the kin of each student. The court had passed the order on October 25, 2007.

The parents who had gone in appeal against the lower court order said they were not pursuing money but just wanted the people responsible for the poor construction of the school building to be punished.

"We had filed an appeal to set an example before society so that such callousness was not repeated," said Hasmukh C Patel, counsel for the parents.

"The high court has ordered Rs3.75 lakh as compensation to the kin of each of the 32 victims after holding the school trustees responsible for the tragedy."

Patel argued before the court that the school building had collapsed within 11 months of its construction. The builders had used substandard material in the construction of the school. Moreover, they had started the school without first taking 'building use' permission from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Patel told the court.

Incidentally, the lower court had suggested enactment of stringent laws for such cases, and had sent a copy of its order to the state government. However, no steps seem to have been taken by the state government in this direction.