Surat: The Gujarat High Court hearing regarding the Morbi Bridge collapse tragedy took a harsh turn on Friday. While Oreva Group, the company responsible for bridge maintenance, finally apologized unconditionally, the court issued a contempt notice against its managing director, Jaysukh Patel, for disobeying previous orders.
The hearing focused on victim rehabilitation, with Oreva initially proposing a compensation plan deemed insufficient by the court. The company agreed to provide Rs 12,000 per month to orphans and widows, while Rs 5,000 would go to employed widows. However, the court questioned the lack of permanent compensation and the absence of a plan addressing Oreva's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations.
Justice for the Victims: Beyond Mere Compensation
The court expressed strong reservations about Oreva's approach. The judges pointed out the company's responsibility extended beyond mere compensation. The gravity of the situation demanded a more comprehensive plan that addressed the long-term needs of the victims, especially the disabled.
The plight of a young woman who suffered a 40% disability in the accident became a focal point. The court emphasized the challenges she would face in finding employment and leading an independent life. Oreva's proposal of a flat "slightly less expensive" than one in Mumbai was deemed inadequate. The court highlighted the social stigma attached to disability and stressed the need for a plan that empowers her to be self-sufficient.
Key observations
The court's criticism extended to Oreva's proposals for other victims. The judges argued that offering sewing machines to widows was akin to charity, not proper rehabilitation. They questioned if the company had considered the reasons behind widows' potential hesitance towards employment and the need for creating sustainable livelihood opportunities.
Similarly, the court challenged the adequacy of raising orphans' education only to college level. They proposed a more substantial monthly allowance alongside educational expenses. Even for disabled individuals, the court demanded a more robust plan, including medical expenses and a higher monthly stipend until they secure jobs.
Court demanded more concrete proposal from Oreva
The hearing concluded with the court demanding a more concrete proposal from Oreva. The company's initial plan for victims over 60 years old, offering only Rs 5,000 per month, was also deemed insufficient, with the court suggesting Rs 12,000 instead. The focus has shifted from mere compensation to a holistic rehabilitation plan that addresses the long-term needs of all affected individuals.
The court's scrutiny of Oreva's initial proposals indicates a growing dissatisfaction with the company's efforts. The victims deserve more than just compensation; they deserve a future free from the devastating consequences of this tragedy. The next hearing will be crucial in determining whether Oreva can present a plan that meets the court's expectations and delivers true justice for the victims of the Morbi Bridge collapse.
