Compensation for the loss suffered by the kith and kins of the victims due to the fire incident.

1. The Writ Petition was filed by the kith and kins of the victims by forming an Association claiming compensation for the loss suffered by them
2. The High Court of Delhi awarded the compensation against the DVB, MCD, DCP (Lic.) and the Cinema owning Company i.e. Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt. Ltd. Vide order dt. 24.04.2003.  Aggrieved by this order MCD, DCP (Lic.) and Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt. Ltd. filed a Special Leave Petition  in the Supreme Court of India.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted the leave in all the petitions.   In the petition filed by Ansal Theatres and Clubotels Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an interim order dt. 11.10.2004 directing the Company to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,01,40,000/- with the High Court of  Delhi.  The Supreme Court further directed that the High Court shall distribute 50% of the amount deposited to the Claimants rateably
4. In pursuance and compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the Cinema owning Company has deposited the amount in the High Court as directed by the Supreme Court.
5. It is true that the loss of lives cannot be compensated in terms of money but such loss was beyond the control of a human being.  In compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Cinema owning Company made the payment of compensation for the loss suffered by the kith and kins of the victims.

Ansal brothers are not at all liable for the incident

1. Initially Ansal brothers were on the Board of Directors of the aforesaid Cinema owning Company but they resigned from the Board on 17.10.1988
2. After ceasing to be Director of the Company, no role of any nature whatsoever can be fastened upon the Ansal brothers for any act or omission which has taken place after about 9 years of their ceasing to be the Directors of the Company
3. Assuming for a moment that a person is a Director in a Company, that does not by it self mean that he is responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the affairs of the business of the company.  The Companies Act does not recognize any thing like deemed liability of the directors, the reason being that the professionals are being employed in the company for running the day-to-day business thereof as such unless and until any specific role is assigned to a particular director, he cannot be held responsible.  Simply being a director of a Board does not mean that the person is responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company.
4. The Ansal brothers have been implicated u/s 304-A IPC.  This section is attracted when the act is done negligently and such act is direct and proximate cause of death without intervention of any other cause
5. In the present case the act was absence of protection systems and improper repair / maintenance of DVB Transformer which caught fire and the fire resulted in smoke and the smoke resulted in death of 59 patrons.  In this entire chain of causes, the role of Ansal brothers cannot be depicted anywhere

Allegations regarding additional seats, doors and gangways

1. Initially there were 250 seats sanctioned in the Balcony.  In the year 1976 a notification dt. 30.9.1976 was issued by Delhi Government increasing the number of seats in the Balcony.   The management of Uphaar increased the seats in the Balcony strictly in compliance of the said notification
2. In the year 1979 another Notification was issued by the Delhi Government withdrawing the earlier Notification dt. 30.09.1976 and the additional seats were asked to be removed.  The said notification of 1979 was challenged by the Association of Cinema Owners in the Delhi High Court.  While disposing of the petition the  Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed the competent authorities to inspect the cinema halls and ensure substantial compliance of the Cinematograph Rules before allowing addition of the seats.  Accordingly, out of 43 seats only 37 seats were allowed by the authorities to be retained in Uphaar Cinema in substantial compliance of the rules.  Thereafter, vide order dt. 04.10.1980 15 more seats were allowed by the authorities to be added in the Balcony.  Thus the total number of seats duly sanctioned for the balcony came to 302 in number.  On the date of incident i.e. 13.06.1997 only 302 seats were existing in the balcony, which were duly sanctioned.
3. So far as 8-Seater Box and 14-Seater Box are concerned, both these boxes are duly sanctioned by the authorities.  This fact is also borne out and established from the statement of the Investigating Officer Mr. R.S. Khatri
4. So far as the allegations regarding seats, gangways and exit doors are concerned, there is no violation and each and every seat, door and gangway is duly sanctioned and in accordance with the DCR, 1953.  Not only this the width of the gangway and the door is found to be more than as required under the rules as such for ingress and egress of the patrons more than sufficient space was provided in the balcony
5. It is significant to notice that all the patrons came out of the Balcony where the deviations, addition of seats, closing of gangways and doors are alleged.  Had these deviations etc. contributed anything for the incident, the deaths ought to have been caused in the balcony itself.  Since the smoke kept on rising gradually as such when its gravity was less, the patrons managed to escape and as soon as the gravity increased, they were stuck up outside the balcony as they could not move forward penetrating the same and died due to suffocation

Was letting out of the portions of Cinema building liable for incident ?

1. The portions let out in the cinema building were duly sanctioned by the competent authorities for commercial activities as such there was no violation of any nature whatsoever on the part of the management of Uphaar Cinema.
2. The permissions were accorded by the competent authorities for letting out the portions in the cinema building as such there was no violation of any nature on the part of management of Uphaar Cinema

Incident of Fire in DVB Transformer on 13.6.1997

1. There are two  Transformers installed in  the Uphaar  Cinema Premises.   One  Transformer is  of 500 KVA which belongs to  Uphaar  Cinema and feeds the  cinema only.    The other transformer is of  1000 KVA which belongs to  DVB  and feeds the surrounding Green Park locality.   It is significant to point out that this DVB Transformer did  not cater the need of Uphaar Cinema.   The DVB’s Substation with Transformer of 1000 KVA installed therein is in  full control, management, maintenance and lock and key of DVB  Officials and the management of  Uphaar Cinema is not at all connected with the same.
2. In  the year 1972 when the Company applied for electricity connection for Uphaar Cinema, it was  compelled by  the  then DESU  Authorities to  provide space for  installation  of a Sub-Stn. to cater the  electricity  requirement of surrounding Green Park and it was only when the  space was provided by  the Uphaar owning Company for  such installation,  the  electricity load was sanctioned for the  cinema.
3. In  the morning of 13.6.1997 there was some sparking in  the DVB Transformer which  was reported to  the Authorities by  the Security  Guard of Cinema.   The complaint of morning sparking was attended around 11.30 a.m. when  the  repair was done  and thereafter the DVB Transformer  was put on load.  From 3.55 p.m. to 4.55 p.m. there was a load shedding in the area.  It is noteworthy that it was the  month of  June and the electricity load  / consumption during the  afternoon was maximum.   After the load shedding when  the electricity in the  area was  restored, the sparking again  took place in the  Transformer may  be due to overloading or some other line fault in the area.  Since, there was no  protection system provided in the Transformer as such the  sparking took place which ultimately  resulted in  the  melting of  the  socket of  one phase of  Bus Bar and bursting  of  the  Transformer.
4. There is voluminous evidence on record to demonstrate that the cause of fire was the fault in the DVB Transformer.  To illustrate and not to exhaust the reports and the statements of Mr. K.L. Grover (Electrical Inspector), Mr. K.V. Singh (Technical Expert, DVB), Prof. M.L. Kothari (Expert, IIT, Delhi) and Dr. Rajinder Singh (Expert – CFSL) are relevant in this context.
5. The cause of death of 59 patrons was the smoke.  The cause   of smoke was the fire in DVB Transformer.  The cause of fire was absence of proper protection system, relays, trenches, earthing, etc. besides the improper repair and maintenance of DVB Transformer.  In this series of causes no role has been played by the Uphaar Management as such they cannot at all be held responsible for the death of 59 patrons.
6. No role is attributable to Uphaar Management for the fire which took place in DVB Transformer.  In fact the management of Uphaar has been deliberately victimized in the case only for the reason that the said transformer was installed inside the cinema premises.

Management of Day to Day Affairs of Uphaar Cinema

1. Right from  the  beginning i.e. since  the year  1973 Mr. K.L. Malhotra was employed as Manager of Uphaar Cinema and later  on he  was promoted as Dy. General Manager of  the Company. Mr. R.M. Puri  was  working as  General Manager of Uphaar Cinema in the  beginning and later  on in  the year 1988 he  was appointed as Whole Time Director of  the  aforesaid  Company which is  the  Owner  of Uphaar Cinema.   Under the  Articles of Association of the  Company the  Whole Time Director is responsible for day  to day  affairs of the Company.
2. On the  date of incident i.e.  13.6.1997 Mr.  R.M. Puri was the  Whole Time Director  and  Mr. K.L. Malhotra was  the  Dy. General Manager.
3. There is voluminous record of  correspondence and  otherwise which  establishes that  the  entire correspondence with different authorities was  mostly being done  by  Mr. K.L. Malhotra and the remaining important correspondence was  being  done  by  Mr. R.M. Puri.  Besides correspondence, all  day  to day income and expenditure of  the  Cinema was being controlled by Mr. K.L. Malhotra and     Mr. R.M. Puri.   They were also  looking after the  day  to  day operation of the cinema business.
4. There is no evidence  to  indicate that  Mr. Sushil Ansal or Mr. Gopal Ansal were at all involved in day  to day control, management  and  affairs  of  the  conduct of business  of Uphaar Cinema.
5. In the beginning Mr.  Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal were on the board  of  Directors of the Company but on  17.10.1988  they  resigned from the Directorship  of the  Company and  since  then they  are not  at all linked with the    cinema business.   It  was only Mr.K.L. Malhotra who was running  the  cinema business  under the  Directorship of Mr. R.M. Puri and  with the  assistance of his  other  Subordinate Managerial Staff.
6. On  the  date  of  incident there  were  three  Directors in the Company namely  Mr. R.M. Puri, Mr. P.P. Dharwadkar and  Mr. Subhash Verma. A specific resolution was also passed by the Company fixing entire responsibility of day to day management and control on Mr. R.M. Puri. Even under the Articles of Association of the Company, it was Whole Time Director who was incharge and responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business and management of the company.

License, its renewal and periodical inspections

1. Under the Cinematograph Act there is a provision for annual license only.  There is nothing like granting of a permanent license for all the time to come.

2. The annual license is renewed every year.  At the time of renewal necessary inspections are being made every year by different authorities as contemplated under the Cinematograph Act and Rules.   

3. The inspecting authorities are as follows:  a. From structural and seating point of view it is the PWD Department.   b. From Health and Sanitation point of view it is the Medical Health Officer, MCD. c.                 From Fire Safety point of view it is the fire department. 

4.  All the annual inspections were carried out regularly and the license was used to be renewed every year by the licensing authority after obtaining no objection certificates from all the three authorities. 

5. On the date of incident all the authorities had granted their no objection certificates after duly carrying out the inspections and there was no violation of any nature on the part of Uphaar Management.

Owner and Licensee of Cinema

1.  In the year 1972  a Company named Green Park Theatres & Associated Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated and in  the year 1996 when  it  also  entered  into the  business of  Club, its  name was  changed to  Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt. Ltd.   In the year 1972 itself this Company acquired the land  on  lease  hold basis in Green Park Area for  the purpose  of  starting a cinema business.   Thereafter, the  Company applied for  sanction of plans of  Cinema Building and simultaneously it  also  applied for  obtaining licence for  exhibition of  films as well  as electricity  connection for running the cinema.  Consequently  the  plans were sanctioned in name of  the Company, licence  for  exhibition of films was  issued  in its  name  and the  electricity  connection was also granted  in  the name  of  the Company.
2. The above facts clearly  establish beyond any  doubt that the  Company is the  exclusive Owner  of the Cinema Building,  Licensee for  exhibition  of  films and the  consumer of  electricity  for cinema business.  Not only this the said licence for  exhibition of films and the periodical renewals  thereof  all  through  continued in  the  name of  the Company and after the  fire  incident  in the year 1997, the  said  renewed  licence was revoked  by  the  Licensing  Authority in  the  name of the  Company  vide order dated 09.07.1997.
3. By  no  stretch of  imagination  it can be  construed that Mr. Sushil Ansal or Mr. Gopal Ansal are the  Owners of  Uphaar Cinema or  that they  are  the Licensee.