SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

A story so told being clear and unambiguous”. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part.”

55Copy pinpoint55. The said aspect of res ipsa loquitor has also been commented upon by the Court Commissioner holding the Organizers and the State liable to apportion the liability. Thus, we are of the opinion that the report of the one-man Commission is not suffering from any infirmity so as to absolve the Organizers from their responsibility of organizing the exhibition. C

56Copy pinpoint56. In terms of the order passed, as mentioned above, the Commission has submitted its report and apportioned the liability between the Organizers and the State as 60:40. No dispute was raised regarding percentage of liabilitydetermined by any of the party to the present proceedings. Therefore, what remains to be seen now, is the question of compensation payable to the victims and/or their families.

57Copy pinpoint57. The State has paid Rs.2 lakhs each as ex-gratia compensation to the families of the deceased, Rs.1 lakh each for the persons who suffered serious injuries and Rs.50,000/- each for the persons suffering from minor injuries whereas the Union of India has paid ex-gratia compensation of Rs.1 lakh each for the deceased and Rs.50,000/- each for those with serious injuries. In terms of the order of this Court, the State has paid Rs.5 lakhs each to the deceased, Rs.2 lakhs each to the victims suffering serious injuries and Rs. 75,000/- each to the victims suffering minor injuries, apart from the amount paid by the Union of F India.

58Copy pinpoint58. The list of deceased and injured persons has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The amount of compensation payable to each of the victim including the families of the deceased have not been computed and such amount is required to be computed in G accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

59Copy pinpoint59. We,therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to entrust the work of determination of compensation to a Judicial Officer in the rank of District Judge/Additional H

SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 181 THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

District Judge at Meerut within two weeks of the order of this Court to work exclusively on the question of determination of the compensation on day-to-day basis. The High Court shall provide all necessary infrastructure to enable the Officer to discharge his duties. The nominated Judicial Officer may permit the parties to lead such evidence as may be permissible. We hope that the nominated Judicial Officer shall calculate the amount of compensation and forward the report to this Court for consideration in respect of compensation in accordance with law. The amount paid by the State and a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs deposited by the Organizers has been disbursed to the victims. The said amount, excluding the ex-gratia payments made, be taken into consideration while determination of the amount payable by the Organizers and the State. C List after four months.

Nidhi Jain Directions issued. (Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA) D