Cor­po­ra­tors de­mand rule change for re­de­vel­op­ment rights for vil­lages ‘Get new of­fi­cer, re­vive CIVIC SCHOOL­CHILD­REN YET TO GET UNI­FORM, BAGS dy­ing health dept’

Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - HT Navi Mumbai Live - - NAVI - Press Trust of In­dia let­ters@hin­dus­tan­times.com G Mo­hi­ud­din Jeddy ht­for­nav­i­mum­bai@hin­dus­tan­times.com

An au­to­mo­bile dealer and his in­surer have been asked by Thane Mo­tor Ac­ci­dent Claims Tri­bunal to pay Rs44.74 lakh to a wo­man and her two chil­dren for the death of her hus­band in a road ac­ci­dent in 2013.

MACT chair­man and prin­ci­pal district judge SM Gavhane di­rected As­set Auto Pvt Ltd, Dima­pur, Na­ga­land (as the of­fend­ing car was reg­is­tered in Na­ga­land), owned by Parvin­der Singh, and Bharti AXA Gen­eral In­sur­ance Com­pany to jointly and sev­er­ally make the pay­ment to the claimants with 9 per cent in­ter­est from May 2013.

On March 2, 2013, Go­rakh Jad­hav (aged around 55) was walk­ing on a road at Nerul in Navi Mum­bai when the op­po­nent’s BMW hit him. Jad­hav sus­tained in­juries and died on way to hos­pi­tal.

An of­fence of rash and neg­li­gent driv­ing was reg­is­tered against the ve­hi­cle driver with Nerul po­lice, said the claimants — Jad­hav’s widow Sharda Go­rakh Jad­hav, 49, and chil­dren Anil Go­rakh, 25, and Ar­pana, 23 — in their ap­pli­ca­tion be­fore the MACT.

The claimants’ ad­vo­cate, G A Vinod, in­formed the MACT that Jad­hav was work­ing with the BEST as an of­fice as­sis­tant and draw­ing monthly salary of around Rs50,000.

They sought a com­pen­sa­tion of Rs53.55 lakh along with 18 per cent in­ter­est from the two re­spon­dents. How­ever, the re­spon­dents con­tended that the de­ceased’s two chil­dren were ma­jor and can­not be said to be de­pen­dent on him. The de­ceased him­self was neg­li­gent in cross­ing the road, they said.

The judge noted that though it is a case of both the op­po­nents that the ac­ci­dent took place due to neg­li­gence of the de­ceased and there was no neg­li­gence of driver of the of­fend­ing car, they have ad­duced no ev­i­dence to sub­stan­ti­ate this con­tention.

An ad­verse in­fer­ence can be drawn against both the op­po­nents that the ac­ci­dent took place due to rash and neg­li­gent driv­ing of the car driver, and that there was no neg­li­gence of the de­ceased, the judge ob­served. He was awarded a com­pen­sa­tion of Rs44,74,928.

The NMMC stand­ing com­mit­tee on Wed­nes­day de­manded that the civic body not in­sist on 100% con­sent for re­de­vel­op­ment per­mis­sion for di­lap­i­dated CIDCO struc­tures as an­nounced by mu­nic­i­pal com­mis­sioner Tukaram Mundhe.

The SC also de­manded re­de­vel­op­ment rights in vil­lages and nearby ar­eas with­out prop­erty proof de­manded by the civic body.

The is­sue was raised by cor­po­ra­tor Deepak Pawar who stated, “The civic body is not ready to ac­cept a re­port by the IIT declar­ing build­ings dan­ger­ous and grant­ing it re­de­vel­op­ment per­mis­sion. The same body how­ever ac­cepts the IIT re­port on Dr. Babasa­heb Ambed­kar Bha­van and de­cides against mar­ble cladding. For Why the dual pol­icy?”

Stated joint di­rec­tor of town plan­ning depart­ment of NMMC, Su­nil Hazare, “There are two dif­fer­ent is­sue to the mat­ter. A build­ing is first de­clared as dan­ger­ous un­der the BPMC Act by the civic body.”

He added, “In case of re­de­vel­op­ment, there is an is­sue of grant­ing ad­di­tional FSI. A special com­mit­tee cross­checks the el­i­gi­bil­ity of re­de­vel­op­ment project for the di­lap­i­dated build­ing. If it fits the bill, then per­mis­sion is granted.”

When stand­ing com­mit­tee chair­man raised the is­sue of 100% con­sent of mem­bers be­ing de­manded for re­de­vel­op­ment in­stead of the 70% de­manded ear­lier, Hazare said, “There was con­fu­sion on the is­sue. The gov­ern­ment order said that the so­ci­eties or apart­ments own­ers or de­vel­op­ers ap­ply for re­de­velop, 70% con­sent will be re­quired. But the same rule went ahead and stated that the con­sent should be as per Apart­ment Own­ers Act which asks for unan­i­mous con­sent.”

He said, “The chief min­is­ter has said in the assem­bly just a cou­ple of days back that he plans to bring the con­sent re­quire­ment of 70% down to 51% while NMMC is still stuck with 100% re­fus­ing to even ac­knowl­edge the chief min­is­ter.”

Hazare said the civic body has not re­ceived any of­fi­cial di­rec­tions on it.

The health depart­ment of NMMC was taken to task in the stand­ing com­mit­tee meet­ing of NMMC on Wed­nes­day over its false prom­ises and poor ser­vices. The SC chair­man Shivram Patil that NMMC ap­point a new of­fi­cer in place of the cur­rent in­cum­bent to over­see the health depart­ment, al­leg­ing that he has failed over the years in his du­ties.

Said Shiv Sena cor­po­ra­tor Prashant Patil, “It is the poor who mostly come to NMMC hos­pi­tals. They are pre­scribed medicines which are not avail­able in the NMMC hos­pi­tal phar­macy. They are forced to spend huge amounts on get­ting them from pri­vate phar­ma­cies.”

NMMC as­sis­tant med­i­cal of­fi­cer of health Dr Deepak Parop­kari said, “We have 425 medicines in stock. Only those medicines that are rare are not stocked.”

Patil said, “The ad­min­is­tra­tion should get a new of­fi­cer to re­vive the dy­ing health depart­ment.”

Ad­di­tional mu­nic­i­pal com­mis­sioner Ankush Cha­van then stated, “It was dis­cussed in the SC and the as­sur­ance was made for three such stores. We will get the fac­tual de­tails to con­firm whether what Parop­kari has said is right and in­form the SC next week.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.