AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Original Application No. 118/2015 (Sunil Patel Vs. Bhopal Incinerator Ltd. & 4 Ors) has been filed under Section 15 read with Section 18 of the NGT Act 2010 by the Applicant who was employee of the Respondent No. 1 M/s Bhopal Incinerator Ltd. seeking relief of compensation for the injury sustained in an accident that occurred while discharging his official duties at the place of work owned by Respondent No. 1.
The facts as alleged are that the Applicant Sunil Patel was working with the Respondent No. 1 Bhopal Incinerator which deals with the disposal of Bio-medical Waste (BMW) in the city of Bhopal and adjoining areas of Raisen as well.
The facts as alleged are that the Applicant (claimant) was engaged as a helper with the Respondent No. 1 company and while working on 18.09.2014 an accident occurred in which as per the Applicant he lost his index finger and was rushed to R.K Hospital by the staff of the company. It is alleged that the hospital during diagnosis and treatment required "implantation of terminal Phallynx of RH index finger". It is further alleged that the Applicant was operated and a treatment ticket has been filed as Annexure A-2. It has further alleged that on 18.10.2014 he was diagnosed with gangrene on the right hand index finger. In support of which he has filed Annexure A-3 treatment record of R.K Hospital. It has been further alleged that as a result of the gangrene on the wound of the right index finger which occurred due to the injury sustained on 18.09.2014 the index finger of the right hand had to be amputated. Based upon the above facts the Applicant has sought relief that the Respondent No. 1 may be directed to pay compensation for the injury sustained during the course of his employment and discharge of his duties while handling such hazardous waste in the Respondent No. 1 Company.
We may also add that during the hearing Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the cause of gangrene was on account of the infection sustained as a result of handling the bio-medical waste which aggravated injury.
The Learned Counsel for the Applicant drew the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the Applicant belongs to "below poverty line" (BPL) category and as such it was prayed in accordance with the provisions contained in para No. 19 of the prescribed format under format (ii) in the National Green Tribunal Act (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 the requirement of payment of court fee may be waived.
For considering the aforesaid prayer it may be necessary to revert back to rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 which provide under proviso to sub-Rule 1 as follows:
"provided that Where the Application is for relief and compensation, it shall be made in Form (ii)".
Form (ii) appended to the Rules of 2011 under para 19 provides as follows:
"The Applicant / Appellant who is below poverty line or indigent in terms of the provisions contained in the order of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall attach an attested copy of proof of below poverty line or indigent to claim waiver of fee"
In this respect the Applicant had filed Annexure A-8 a certificate issued by the office of the District Collector Damoh, M.P. which certifies that the Applicant is a person belonging to the category of below poverty line and in view of the above a requirement for payment of court fee on this application under Section 15 is ordered to be waived.
Replies were filed by M/s Bhopal Incinerator as well as the State. The Respondent No. 1 in their reply have inter-alia submitted that a public ltd. company was incorporated in the year 2002 by a group of 193 practising doctors of Bhopal for setting up a facility to deal with the disposal of BMW and to comply with the Bio-Medical Waste (BMW) Rules 1998. This responsibility was taken up by the Respondent No. 1 for setting up the facility including reception, transportation, storage, disposal and treatment of BMW generated in the District of Bhopal and Raisen with the objective of "Sawacch Bhopal Sawastha Bhopal". The Respondent No. 1 denied that there was any complacency on their part in providing adequate safeguards or not providing safety equipments to the workers and employee. It was also asserted that gloves, shoes, masks etc. were provided to the workers for ensuring their safety. However, in so far as the averments to the contents of the Application are concerned with regard to the injury it has been stated in para 12.4 as follows;
The averment of the Applicant that he has been forced to do overtime on many occasions is denied. The answering Respondent does not deny the fact of the incident of injury on the tip of right hand index finger. The following points emerge with regards to the injury sustained by the Applicant:
a. The Applicant has failed to apprise this Hon‟ble Tribunal about the reason of injury sustained on 18.09.2014. The answering Respondent submits that the Applicant sustained injury on the tip of his index finger due to the blade in the shredding machine.
It is submitted that the shredder works like a juicer or a flour mill where the raw material is inserted inside the machine from above. It is submitted that wooden / plastic pressing equipment is provided for pressing the raw material inside the shredder to avoid any direct contact of the machine and any resultant injury.
It is submitted that the applicant while putting the material (disinfected plastic bottles) in the shredder failed to use the pressing equipment and inserted his hand deep into the shredder negligently against the advice and strict direction and provision of safety measures on the part of the management of the answering Respondent Company, which resulted in the injury to the applicant.
b. As it has been contended the injury on the tip of the right index finger of the Applicant occurred at 8:30 p.m. the applicant was immediately taken to R.K Hospital being near to the answering Respondent company and was admitted at around 9:15 p.m.
c. The applicant was taken to the R.K hospital on free medical treatment and was diagnosed the requirement of re-implantation of terminal phallynx of right hand index finger. It means that a small surgery was required for re-implantation of the cut in the aforesaid finger. This is evident from the admission papers of the applicant Annexure A-2 of the O.A.
The same medical paper also suggests that the re-implantation of the amputated terminal phallynx was done.
d. It is pertinent to bring to the notice of this Hon‟ble Tribunal that the applicant asked for a premature discharge within two days i.e on 20.09.2015 and the "condition at the time of discharge"from R.K. Hospital was as follows:
"advice to wait till the implantation is secured and also may need k-wire insertion for terminal phallynx. However, PATIENT NOT WILLING AND LAMA (left against medical advice")
e. The applicant absconded thereafter leaving the treatment against medical advice and did not get further treatment.
f. The applicant due to his own negligence and forced discharged developed gangrene in the coming days and was again admitted to R.K Hospital for operation of gangrenous tip of right index finger.
g. The medical papers of the applicant (Annexure A-3) of the O.A. (page 20) depict the operation where disarticulation of right index finger was done and the wound was closed.
It is submitted that the gangrene developed due to the negligence of the applicant since he did not get his untreated wound / injury treated for almost a period of 18-20 days.
A perusal of the above, therefore, clearly shows that so far as the occurrence of the injury to the Applicant while discharging his duties at his place of work of the Respondent No. 1 is concerned that is on 18.09.2014 on the index finger of the right hand while working on the shredding machine is not denied.
However, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that the Applicant himself was responsible for not using the issued devices for pressing raw material inside the shredding and was instead using his hands which came into contact with the blades of the shredder machine resulting in the injury.
It is however, the case of the Respondent No. 1 that as soon as the injury occurred at about 8:30 p.m on 18.09.2014, the Applicant was rushed to RK. Hospital by the management of the Respondent No. 1 and was treated at the said hospital. The treatment further required re-implantation of the cut portion of the aforesaid finger. However, even against medical advice the Applicant sought his discharge on 20.09.2015. It is therefore, the case of the Respondent No. 1 that whatever further happened to the condition of right index finger of the Applicant, was not a result of the injury but as a result of the Applicant's unwillingness to undergo the complete treatment and having "left against medical advice" which can be borne out from the medical record Annexure A-2 filed by the Applicant along with his claim Application wherein it has been stated on page 2 of the same as follows:
"Advice to wait till implantation is secured and also may need K-wire insertion for terminal Phallynx However, PATIENT NOT WILLING AND LAMA (left against medical advice)".
It is submitted that the Applicant thereafter returned to the hospital specifically on 06.10.2015 because the condition of his right hand index finger had deteriorated and the gangrene which had set in was required to be treated which resulted in an operation for disarticulation of the right index finger.
From the above discussion which is the contents of the application and its annexed documents as well as the reply submitted by the Respondent No. 1 it is borne out that the injury to the Applicant is not denied. The injury occurred during the course of his employment with the Respondent No. 1 which is not denied. The Applicant was rushed by the Respondent No. 1 for treatment is also not denied and the treatment was accorded at the expense of the Respondent No. 1 is also not denied. The Applicant left the hospital against medical advice and without securing complete treatment is also borne out from the evidence on record filed by the Applicant himself in the form of Annexure A-2 and A-3. That there is amputation of the right index at the tip is also established which is attributable to the injury suffered during the course of his employment.
Under the orders of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2015 the Applicant was directed to appear before the Medical Board at the Hamidiya Government Hospital to determine the nature of his injury, requirement of any further treatment and / or the extent of disablement if any.
The Applicant Sunil Patel, however, failed to appear before the hospital authorities on the date and time fixed for determining the nature of the injury and also the extent of disablement. In view of the above, the matter has to be dealt with in accordance with the facts that have come on record.
The provisions of the NGT Act 2010 for awarding compensation are two-fold. Firstly, under Section 15 it is provided that the Tribunal may by an order provide -
" relief and compensation to victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in schedule 1 (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance)".
Under sub-Section 4 it has further provided that -
"The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in schedule II" appended to the enactment that is the NGT Act 2010.
In addition to the above under Section 17 it is provided as follows:-
Where death of, or injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property or environment has resulted from an accident or the adverse impact of an activity or operation or process, under any enactment specified in Schedule I, the person responsible shall be liable to pay such relief or compensation for such death, injury or damage, under all or any of the heads specified in Schedule II, as may be determined by the Tribunal.
If the death, injury or damage caused by an accident or the adverse impact of an activity or operation or process under any enactment specified in Schedule I cannot be attributed to any single activity or operation or process but is the combined or resultant effect of several such activities, operations and processes, the Tribunal may, apportion the liability for relief compensation amongst those responsible for such activities, operations and processes on an equitable basis.
The Tribunal shall, in case of an accident, apply the principle of no fault.
In addition to the above schedule II of the NGT Act 2010 inter-alia provides heads which are relevant for the purpose of this case under which relief for damage may be claimed are as follows:
b. Permanent, temporary, total partial disability or other injury or sickness.
c. Loss to wages due to total or partial disability for permanent or temporary disability.
d. medical expenses incurred for treatment of injuries or sickness.
m. Loss of business or employment or both.
The NGT Act 2010 under the definition clause Section 2 (A) provides the definition of an accident mean "an accident involving a fortuitous or sudden or unintended occurrence while handling any hazardous substance or equipment, or plant, or vehicle resulting in continuous or intermittent or repeated exposure to death, of, or, injury to, any person or damage to any property or environment but does not include an accident by reason only of war or civil disturbance"
In so far as the applicability of the provisions of Section 15 is concerned it has been specified clearly under Section 15 (1) (A) that relief for compensation by the victims can be sought for any injury arising under the enactment specified in schedule I including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance. Under Schedule I of the NGT Act 2010 at serial No. 5 the Environment Protection Act 1986, has been specifically enumerated and it is in exercise of the power under the Environment Protection Act 1986 that the BMW Rules 1998 have been enacted which prescribe the method of collection, segregation, handling and disposal of the BMW. It was in this process that the facility by the Respondent No. 1 was set up in which the Applicant was employed. It was also in the course of his employment while handling the BMW as admitted by the Respondent No. 1 in their reply in para 5 quoted above that the Applicant sustained the injury. In view of the above it is established on record that the injury suffered by the Applicant occurred in the course of his employment while working at the facility set up by the Respondent No. 1 and in discharge of his duties for fulfilling the objective as prescribed under the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling Rules) 1998 promulgated under the Environment Protection Act 1986 which is a Schedule enactment enumerated at serial no. 5 of the NGT Act 2010 in Schedule I. It is also established that the injury sustained was a result of an accident in terms of the definition contained in Section 2 (a).
This brings us to the issue with regard to the quantum of compensation that may be awarded to the Applicant. We have already quoted above the provisions of Schedule II providing the heads under which compensation for relief may be claimed by the affected person under the provisions of the NGT Act 2010. Under clause B and C damages can be awarded for permanent / temporary, total or partial disability or other injury or sickness.
In so far as whether or not injury suffered by the Applicant is permanent or temporary in nature is concerned there is no dispute that the injury is of a permanent nature also that it is in the form of disability to the extent that the Applicant has suffered amputation of the tip of the right index finger. However, the question remains as to whether it is partial and the extent to which such partial disability may result in the loss of wages or earning to the Applicant.
As has been already stated above the Applicant failed to appear before the Medical Board as directed by the Tribunal on 10.12.2015 for assertion of the extent of his disability. In that view, the matter has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings which are there on record. The disability in this case is a result of the injury of the amputation of the tip of the right index finger which as per the Respondent could have been restored if the Applicant had continued with the treatment and had not left the hospital by getting himself discharged against medical advice. This however, need not detain us as Section 17 (3) may be invoked for the purposes of dealing with cases of no fault liability. Even after assuming that the Respondent No. 1 took all necessary steps as alleged by them in their reply of providing necessary safeguards as also implementations for the use of the shredder as indicated by them in this case it is not disputed that the injury occurred to the Applicant in the course of his employment. In that view of the matter we are of the view and put it across to the Applicant if he would be willing to be reinstated in service as we have been informed that after the injury the Applicant did not rejoin his duties because as per the Applicant his services were terminated. Nonetheless, the Applicant categorically stated in court during the hearing that he was not interested in reinstatement of his job with the Respondent No. 1. In our view reinstatement in the job would have ensured continuity of livelihood and earning to the Applicant which the Respondent No. 1 was willing to do. The Applicant in our view would be entitled to compensation to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) on one time basis for the injury suffered by him. As far as the loss of wages due to disability is concerned since he was being offered reinstatement but failed to take the same, question of loss of wages, in our view, to the Applicant does not arise. We have further been informed during the course of hearing that during the period the Applicant was undergoing the treatment no portion of his wages was deducted and he left his job voluntarily. We however, would not like to deliberate on the aforesaid issue as to whether he left the job voluntarily or was asked to leave the job which in our opinion can be adjudicated before the competent court of jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Under the head of Clause D of medical expenses it is not disputed that all medical expenses for treatment at the R.K Hospital Bhopal were borne by the Respondent No. 1 and even the Applicant has not claimed any amount under the aforesaid head. This takes us to the loss head under clause (M) of loss of business or employment or both which in our opinion we have already dealt with under clause B and C.
In our view under clause "N" regarding any other claim which is the residual part, we feel that the Applicant shall be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) towards the pain and suffering which he underwent as a result of the injury.
In Original Application No. 119/2015 Bhupendra Singh Shakya Vs. Bhopal Incinerators & Ors, the facts of this case are that the Bhupendra Singh is a claimant and was engaged as a helper by the Respondent No.1 Company from 21.11.2012. It is stated by the Applicant that on 23.07.2015 at about 10:15 pm an accident occurred in which he hurt his right middle finger. It is alleged that he was taken to Hamidiya Hospital at Bhopal for treatment in the morning, thereafter, he was admitted to R.K hospital in the afternoon at about 2:50 pm on 24.07.2015 and in treatment his right hand middle finger was amputated. He remained hospitalised at the R.K hospital from 24.07.2015 to 29.07.2015. For this injury the Applicant claimed compensation.
In reply the Respondent No. 1 does not deny the fact that during the course of employment the Applicant suffered the injury on the right middle finger. It is however, submitted that the Applicant has not given details of the manner in which the injury was sustained and it is claimed by the Respondent No. 1 that the injury was received on 23.07.2015 by the Applicant while operating the shredding machine and it is contended that it is as a result of his own negligence of not using the required devices for pressing the material and instead using his own bare hands for the aforesaid task. It is further stated that he pressed his hand deep into the shredding machine as a result of which he sustained the injury in his finger. It is further contended that the Applicant was rushed to the RK hospital immediately but he left the RK hospital after some time against medical advice and instead was brought to the Hamidiya Hospital for medication. He was then admitted to the RK hospital again at 2:50 pm on 24.07.2015.
From the above it is not disputed that Bhupendra Singh the Applicant sustained the injury during the course of his employment while working for the Respondent No. 1. It is also not disputed that as a result of injury received on the right middle finger the right middle finger had to be amputated.
The Applicant Bhupendra Singh was also sent for medical examination before the Medical Board where the above facts were confirmed. It was recorded by the Medical Board as "on clinical examination non-surgical problem present" the fact of amputation has been confirmed however, in the opinion of the Board no treatment is required. On the ground on which the Applicant Bhupendra Singh may be awarded compensation in terms of the Schedule II are partial disability, loss of wages due to partial disability, medical expenses incurred for treatment and loss of business or employment or both.
It is not disputed that there has been amputation of the tip of the middle finger of the right hand which would fall under the head of partial permanent disability. However, so far as loss of wages is concerned, due to the above there has been no such loss as there is no allegation of deduction of any wages on account of hospitalisation or otherwise as a result of the aforesaid injury. In so far as, medical expenses are concerned which were incurred during the treatment of the Applicant, the same was incurred by the Respondent employer and therefore, no such compensation is admissible. And as far as the loss of business or employment is concerned, the Applicant did not suffer any such loss because even after the injury he was not removed by the employer for being unable to perform his duties. It is a fact that after he received the injury he had left the employment and so far as to the nature and the reasons for leaving the employment or having been removed from employment concerned it is a disputed question which cannot be examined within the jurisdiction of the NGT Act.
It is open for the Applicant to raise the issue in an appropriate forum if he is aggrieved with the alleged removal from the employment. During the hearing the Applicant has refused to be reinstated in the job with the Respondent employer when specifically enquired by the Tribunal.
In the light of the above, as in the case of partial permanent disability to the right middle finger the Applicant is awarded an amount of Rs.25000/- (twenty five thousand) which shall also include compensation on account of pain and suffering.
In O.A No. 135/2015 Ashok Kumar Manjhi Vs. Bhopal Incinerator Ltd. & Ors the Applicant Ashok Kumar was employed with the Respondent No. 1, Bhopal Incinerator Ltd. as a helper. He served with the Respondent employer with effect from 01.05.2008. He has alleged that on 21.09.2015 he was diagnosed with "Bronchitis Asthma and Hypocalcemia" which as per the allegation of the Applicant he acquired while working with the Respondent No. 1 and the problem was attributable to the work being performed by him in the employment of the Respondent No. 1.
He further alleged that as a result of the non implementation of the Bio-Medical (Management and Handling) Rules 1998 with regard to adopting the safety measures and wearing of safety equipments the Applicant has suffered the problem. In support of the same he has even filed a discharge ticket from the People's Hospital at Bhopal.
As per the above he was admitted on 21.09.2015 and discharged on 29.09.2015, the same has been annexed as Annexure A-4. There are also medical bills dated 09.10.2015 of Rs. 2625 and 174 and investigation slips of the People's Hospital Bhopal for an amount of Rs. 770, 770, 100, 120 which is rounded up Rs. 1,760/- (One thousand seven hundred sixty).
The medical report of Ashok Kumar given by the Board to which he was referred on 21.01.2016 states that at present on clinical examination no surgical problem present and further that Shri Ashok Kumar Manjhi was examined by the consultants and investigated. Accordingly, he is suffering from mild chronic Bronchitis and there is no evidence of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. As per the reply of the Respondent No. 1 it is submitted that the disease which Applicant is suffering from has no relationship with his work or exposure to (Bio Medical Waste) BMW.
It is claimed that disease such as Bronchitis Asthma and Hypocalcaemia are either genetic or allergic due to drugs or smoking. The other symptoms as per the Respondent No. 1 are of U.R.T (Upper Respiratory Tract Infection) which as per the Respondent No. 1 is a symptom of common cold. It has been denied that any of these are attributable to the working conditions or to the nature of work being performed at the place of employment with the Respondent No. 1.
It is further submitted that in case of the alleged diseases being attributable to the place of work it would have been a continuous Asthma which was not noticed during the seven and a half years of service which the Applicant performed. Even Hypocalcaemia as per the Respondent No. 1 is a calcium deficiency which cannot be attributable to the nature of the work.
It is further alleged that no accident has occurred at the place of the work during the course of the employment which could reasonably responsible for the medical condition of the Applicant.
It is however, not in dispute that the Applicant Ashok Kumar is still in the employment of the Respondent No. 1 Company.
Having considered the matter while we cannot safely conclude whether the present medical condition of the Respondent No. 1 of the Bronchitis Asthma as has been confirmed by the Medical Board is attributable to the nature of duties being performed by the Applicant at the place of work. There is a lack of pleading on the part of the Respondent as to what was his medical condition at the time when the Applicant joined the services in 2008. Also it is not clear from the reply filed by the Respondents whether the Respondents had in fact got the Applicant treated or reimbursed the expenses incurred by him during treatment.
In the light of these facts on the counts as provided in the Schedule II to the Rules the Applicant in our opinion does not suffer from any temporary or partial disability. However, in so far as being diagnosed with the ailment of Bronchitis Asthma we would award the Applicant an amount of Rs. 25000/- (twenty five thousand). Since, there is no material to suggest that at the time of his joining the employment that he was already suffering from the aforesaid ailment with the Respondent claim a genetic. Since the Applicant is still in employment with the Respondent No. 1 and is performing his duties specifically no other compensation is admissible. However, we would direct that the Respondent No. 1 employer shall from time to time have the medical examination of Applicant for his condition and pay to him all necessary medical expenses that may be required to be incurred for any treatment that may be advised.
In O.A. No. 136/2015 Mohammad Tahir Vs. Bhopal Incinerators Ltd. & Ors., the Applicant was employed as a driver of the van which was used for carrying BMW and transporting it to the facility for disposal. However, he claims that he was also assigned the task of acting as a helper and claims that he suffered in August 2015 various diseases and sought treatment at the BMHRC Bhopal. It has been submitted that he suffered from "acute pancreatitis" and was also suffering from "neurological brain" problem for these he received treatment and in support of the same has filed the treatment tickets of various hospitals and diagnostic centres. However, no bills of any medicines have been produced.
The Applicant Mohammad Tahir had been sent for medical examination by the Medical Board. In the medical examination by the medical Board it has been stated in para 4 of their reply as follows :-
That, after examining the aforesaid Medical Examination report of the instant Applicant (Annexure -1), Mohammad Tahir, the answering Respondent submits that :
(a) The observation after the surgical check-up of the Applicant is
- "On Clinical Examination, at present, no surgical problem present."
(b) The final remark of the Chairman of the Medical Board (Professor and Head -Medicine) about the condition of the Applicant is :
"Mohammad Tahir has been examined by various consultants as requires and accordingly investigated. He has B/L Optic Neuritis and Cholelithiasis"
(c) It is submitted that Cholelithiasis is the medical name for "Gall Bladder Stone." It has been submitted by the answering Respondent in its reply to this Original Application dated 02.02.2016 that the Applicant has a history of being a Chronic alcoholic / smoker‟ as evident from the medical paper enclosed at page 52 of the O.A.
(d) The document dated 20.03.2015 enclosed with the O.A. at Page 40 indicates advice for gall stone removal.
(e) Optic Neuritis is the drying of the eye nerves.
It has further been alleged by the Respondent No. 1 that the Applicant had an history of being chronic smoker and alcoholic, as such it cannot be ruled out that his condition as observed by the Medical Board may be attributable to the aforesaid habits.
We have considered the aforesaid submission and the Applicant has also declined being re-employed with the Respondent No. 1 and claims that he was at present not in gainful employment and his duties as per the Application itself were of driver which we consider cannot be in any manner responsible for his present medical condition as diagnosed by the Medical board. However, since the Applicant would have required medical expenses for his treatment regarding which no specific details have though been provided by the Applicant himself but the fact remains that till the time he remained in employment and specifically as claimed by him during the course of hearing he required treatment for his present condition we would direct that he is awarded compensation in the benefit of doubt for an amount of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand). The Applicant Mohammad Tahir has also declined either of re-employment when specifically asked during the course of hearing in the Tribunal.
As regards other aspects regarding the prevalent conditions at the place of employment of the Respondent No. 1 have produced record to show that to each of the Applicants necessary equipment had been issued. It has further been submitted that medical examination as well as health check-ups on a regular basis of all employees are being carried out.
The Respondent No. 1 has further stated that to all the employees including the Applicants various types of equipments including gloves, shoes etc. had been issued also in support of the above conditions whether for the purchase of various items as would be required by the employees that is the helpers etc. or for performing their duties have also been produced on record.
In view of the above it cannot be conclusively held against the Respondent No. 1 that they fail to provide the preventive equipment to its employees. However, having said so we would direct the PCB to keep strict monitoring and visit on the requirement for observance of the rules and preventive measures be adopted by the Respondent No. 1 while undertaking the aforesaid task. A regular and surprise inspection for ensuring the same shall necessarily be carried out by the PCB authorities and wherever such non-observance is found the Respondent PCB shall deal with the issue in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions these Original Applications No. 118/2015, 119/2015, 135/2015 & 136/2015 with all pending M.As stand disposed of. In conclusion so far as claims are concerned the Applicant Shri Sunil Patel is awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand), Shri Bhupendra Singh is awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand), Shri Ashok Kumar is awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) and Shri Mohammad Tahir is awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand).
The other issue regarding observance of BMW Rules by the Respondent No. 1 which have been raised in these Original Applications being separately dealt with by the Tribunal. In other Original Application Nos. 144/2015 Nagarik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch Vs. State of M.P & 6 Ors., O.A. No. 05/2016 Balwant Singh Raghvanshi Vs. Bhopal Incinerator Ltd. & Ors and O.A. No.79/2015 Kuldeep Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. where all the three States of Rajasthan, M.P and Chhattisgarh have directed to submit the status regarding the implementation of BMW Rules 1998/2016 the MPPCB, RSPCB and CECB Chhattisgarh have been directed to ensure compliance in this behalf. As such no separate directions are required to be passed in these Original Applications. However, we direct the RO of the PCB to carry out periodic inspections and take all necessary steps that may be required for observance of the BMW Rules.