Deaths due to metro pillar collapse: Karnataka High Court seeks State, BMRCL replies in plea for ₹10 crore compensation

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday sought responses from the State government and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) on a plea by a man seeking ₹10 crore compensation for the deaths of his wife and his son due to a metro pillar collapse earlier this year. [Lohitkumar V Sulakhe v. The State of Karnataka and Ors].Justice Krishna S Dixit issued notice to the State government, BMRCL as well as other respondents..In January this year, the petitioner, his wife and two children were on a two-wheeler in Nagawara when a metro pillar fell on them. This lead to the death of the petitioner's wife and son. He and his daughter suffered non-fatal injuries.The High Court, on January 13, had taken suo motu cognisance of the incident.A Bench of Chief Justice PB Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi had opined that the incident raised safety concerns for the public at large."These news items prompted us to take cognizance of incident referred to wherein there was an unfortunate death of a lady and her toddler son and the condition of the roads," the Court had said..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.