The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Monday asked the Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. (AHPCL) to pay over Rs 9 crore as compensation to the victims of Uttarakhand flood in June 2013.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Monday asked the Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. (AHPCL) to pay over Rs 9 crore as compensation to the victims of Uttarakhand flood in June 2013. The green body imposed the fine while rejecting the power company’s claim that the loss due to floods was an “act of God”. The direction comes on a case filed by an organisation of the residents of Srinagar, Uttarakhand, seeking compensation for the loss of life and property and for restoration work. The bench, headed by Justice U.D. Salvi, asked the firm to deposit the compensation within 30 days with the environmental relief fund authority.
More than 6,000 persons had died and property worth several millions was damaged in the June 2013 floods in Uttarakhand.
During the hearing, the applicants told the tribunal that AHPCL, which is building the 330 MW Srinagar hydro electric project, inappropriately dumped large quantities of muck generated from the construction site just near the gates of the dams.
“Due to heavy rains on 16-17 June, 2013, the reservoir of Srinagar hydro electric project was filled and the dam gates being kept closed, led to the creation of huge reservoir of water. This resulted in a massive flow of water, suddenly sweeping away the muck dumped in the river body while damaging property worth Rs 9.26 crore,” the applicants argued. On the other hand, AHPCL told the green court that the victims of the tragedy have already been compensated by the Uttarakhand government and the loss due to floods is a result of “act of God” claim which was shared by the Uttarakhand government. The company also claimed that the 2013 tragedy was due to heavy cloud burst that took place in the Kedarnath mountain range, situated upstream of the project. It was the cloud burst that caused heavy floods in the Mandakini-Alaknanda-Bagirathi river basin.
The NGT bench, however, set aside the company’s contention that the damage was the result of “act of God” and said: “Even if it was an act of God, the question remains to be examined as to whether the principle of ‘no fault liability’ can be invoked in the present case or not.”
The bench also said that it is undisputable that the June 2013 floods were due to cloud burst but it was within the knowledge of the company that the project is situated in geologically sensitive area of Himalayas where cloud burst is not a rare phenomenon and though the environment clearance did not mandate plan for muck disposal, the Union environment ministry had sounded an alarm regarding it.
“Having regard to these known conditions, human foresight could have reasonably anticipated that laxity in taking timely protective measures such as slope dressing, terracing, and toe walls covering the top soil at the permanent muck disposal sites would prove disastrous to the environment, particularly, to the human beings who are the components of environment. Material before us points out the laxity on the part of AHPCL in relation to taking adequate safety measures for muck disposal sites,” said the bench in its 42-page order.
