Metro Plus
Chennai
Hyderabad
Whose responsibility is it?
|
The recent death of a carpenter due to electrocution by a high-tension wire near his workplace is not only a tragedy for his family but also raises issues of compensation and moral responsibility. USHA RAMAN gets into the heart of the matter.
|
Photos: K Ramesh Babu
LIVE WIRE: High tension wires can prove fatal.
ON OCTOBER 1, a young carpenter set off from his small home in Tarnaka to work at a site near Saroornagar, to help create the interiors for the two-storey home of a jeweller. The work on a wooden cupboard progressed as steadily as the day, and by early afternoon, the young man, Shantaiah, was ready to fit the aluminium strip for the sliding doors.
Taking care to avoid the television in the room where he worked, he carried the long metal strip out on to the balcony to measure and cut it to size. In the process, the metal brushed against an 11 KV high-tension wire that hung at arm's length from the balcony. The current that was transmitted through his body rendered him unconscious, and by the time his co-workers managed to transport him to Osmania General Hospital he was pronounced dead.
"The head carpenter who had given him the job called us around 3 p.m. and told us he had suffered a shock," recalls Shantaiah's aged father Ramulu, who works as a watchman in a small apartment complex in Tarnaka.
"Immediately, we went, along with one of the flat owners, to the hospital," says Shantaiah's younger sister, Ruthamma. By the time the family arrived, life had long since ebbed away; the flat owner who drove them took over the formality of identifying the body.
For Shantaiah's family, his sudden death is a tragedy of far-reaching consequences. He leaves behind old parents, a young wife in indifferent health, and two children, a son who has just turned one, and a daughter, 6. His small but fairly regular income was the family's main support, supplemented only slightly by his wife's wages as a domestic helper and his father's small watchman's salary. His son will have practically no memories of his father; his family's poverty will be accentuated manifold. All because of a wire that lay too close to a house.
For the rest of us Hyderabadis Shantaiah's case throws up many concerns and questions, reflecting a tragedy that goes beyond the personal. True, such tragedies occur everyday. True, people suffer accidents on the street, at the workplace, at home? Such is the texture of life everywhere, for everyone. But can such accidents ever be dismissed as `routine'? Can the avoidable loss of life ever be excused? A closer examination of the facts reveals a tragedy that could have been averted, if not for the fine meshwork of corruption that underlies--and undermines--the very systems that are supposed to make our homes and our cities safe places to live and work in. In a way, every one of us who builds a structure, who employs people to work in it, who applies for or gives permission to build a certain way, or maintains it, is responsible for making sure that these spaces are as accident-proof as possible.
Even with every possible precaution, accidents will happen; but when they take life because of oversight or wilful negligence, there is no excuse in a society that purports to be in the twenty-first century.
DEATH TRAPS: Beware of loose wires near apartments.
When Shantaiah was electrocuted, he did not die immediately. He became unconscious, and his co-workers took him to the nearest hospital in the area. This private nursing home refused to admit him, fearing medico-legal implications. They then took him as quickly as possible to Osmania General, several kilometres away. Several questions arise that will forever torment the family and friends. Could some life-saving first aid have been applied immediately at the first hospital? Was it the lost time that ultimately proved fatal? And most important of all, why was it that no one warned Shantaiah or any of the other workers that there was a high-tension wire so close to the work place? Why was the wire there in the first place? Why did the homeowner not respond in a timely and humane manner? That is, why did he not immediately come forth to arrange medical assistance, and why did he not voluntarily offer financial support once the death was confirmed? The day after the accident, the head carpenter filed an FIR citing accidental death by electrocution at the Saroornagar Police Station.
Since the accident occurred within the jeweller's home, and since it happened during the course of carrying out his duties, the family expected that they would be paid a reasonable compensation. The law lays down that this reasonable compensation should take into account several factors-the age of the victim, the occupation and earning potential, the responsibilities, and number of productive years lost. In most cases involving families of labourers who have neither the financial or physical and mental stamina to press their demands, such compensation is rarely paid, and when paid, it falls far below that "reasonable" level.
"In Shantaiah's case, the jeweller was said to have offered a sum of Rs. 10,000 as total compensation for the price of his life - an amount which would barely cover the funeral and transport arrangements. Those interested in protecting the interests of Shantaiah's family are asking for a sum of Rs. 60,000 at least, so that some of the money can be put into a fixed deposit for the two children. If legally determined, however, the compensation would be much higher than that.
But then, the middle-class mind might ask, how is the homeowner responsible for an accident that he had no control over, that he did not directly cause? On the surface, this might seem like an accident in which responsibility cannot be directed at anyone-some might say, he was doing his work, he got careless, and he got hurt. Look more carefully and critically, and you will see that blame does find places to rest, even if it more often than not slips quietly and quickly into the gaps created by public ignorance.
There are clearly at least three guilty parties in this "accident". One, the homeowner, who should have provided warning of the existence of a hazard at close range.
Reportedly, another labourer had suffered an electric shock at the same site just a few months earlier, but no protective measures were taken even after that.
The person in that case recovered from the shock with only minor injuries. Two, the AP State Electricity Board, which should have moved the high-tension line away from a residential area, or at least taken measures to insulate it.
APSEB inspectors are supposed to make periodic checks of where their lines lie and whether they pose a danger to those in surrounding areas, and take corrective action wherever required.
Third, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, which should not permit construction (particularly residential) at such close proximity to a high-tension wire.
"But entire system is so corrupt that permissions are given without adequate checking, and then those who check are bribed to ignore the findings, and finally those who build pay no attention either to safety or to legal prescriptions," says Manohar, a lawyer who on occasion handles such litigations.
Those who get hurt by this system ultimately are people who have absolutely no means to fight it, and often they do not even realise that they are victims of something larger than the accident itself.
Normally, no construction is permitted within a certain distance of high-tension lines.
However, with unchecked and unregulated urban sprawl, housing and commercial construction has overrun the old electricity grid, and buildings have sprung up in total disregard of this rule.
"This kind of violation of housing bye-laws and a disregard for what's permitted and not permitted happens much more in Hyderabad than in other urban areas," says Manohar. And our municipality responds by offering `amnesty' to those who flout the laws.
Though the AP High Court has struck down the "regularisation of illegal constructions" scheme as being against the public interest, several builders continue to break the laws and go beyond what has been permitted in their plans.
The end result of all this is that people like Shantaiah get hurt. Even if one can accept that in the large scheme of things, accidents do happen and will continue to happen, it is impossible to deny that each such accident is a tragedy and one must treat it as such.
The humane response is to help the family find the means to survive the loss of a provider and to a way to cope.
The logical social response is to try to ensure that such tragedies are avoided by making all workspaces as safe as possible and to do away with the corrupting influences that undermine that safety.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Metro Plus
Chennai
Hyderabad
|
