On January 24, the Operation Engineer of BMRCL addressed a letter to the petitioner informing him that he will be provided ₹20 lakh as compensation for the loss of his wife and his son. Aggrieved by the compensation amount, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking ₹10 crore instead.
According to the plea, the compensation was not adequate and was awarded by the respondents merely to hide their negligence, carelessness and ignorance with regard to safety precautions.
The plea stated that the petitioner and his deceased wife had recently purchased an apartment for which they had secured a loan. Given this context, the petitioner mentioned that his wife earned approximately ₹10 lakh per year, with the possibility of her salary increasing by 20% each year.
Further, the petitioner stated that his son was just about two-and-a-half years old when his life cut short due to negligence of the respondents.
Therefore, he contended that the compensation of ₹20 lakh was not sufficient and sought ₹10 crore as compensation instead.
Source: Barandbench
