- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for respondent no.8 Rajiv Marriage Palace and dispose of the appeal by passing the following judgment.
(3.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.13214 of 1996, urging various grounds and praying for setting aside the impugned judgment. According to the appellants the relevant necessary facts and the grounds framing certain questions that would arise for consideration of this Court are confined at the time of hearing only with regard to the grievance of the appellants that the High Court having accepted the findings of fact recorded on the question of negligence on the part of the appellants and respondent no.8 Rajiv Marriage Palace, who were held negligent in the fire accident caused on the fateful day on account of which 446 persons died and so many others had burn injuries. On the question that framed for its consideration by the High Court with regard to apportioning the respondent's negligence for the tragedy in question and the liability for payment of compensation flowing from the same upon the parties to the writ proceedings have recorded the acts of omissions and commissions on the role played by each one of those held responsible for the accident. The High Court has apportioned 55% liability of compensation between the appellants and respondent no.8-- the owners of the Rajiv Marriage Palace, where the function was held and fire accident took place and the remaining percentage of liability of compensation was fastened 15% each upon the Municipal Committee, Dabwali, the Haryana State and the Haryana State Electricity Board (now the name has changed to Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam). Having recorded such finding and apportioning the compensation amount awarded by the High Court between the appellants and respondent no.8- Management of Rajiv Palace, it has been held that the appellants and respondent no.8 would be jointly and severally liable to pay 55% of the compensation to the claimants, therefore the appellants have appeared before this Court by filing this appeal questioning not apportioning the percentage of the liability of compensation between the Appellants and respondent No.8 awarded to the claimants.;