While
paying our highest respect towards the Indian Parliament that enacted an added
Clause of ‘Nuclear Liability Law’ in order to provide a foolproof and direct responsibility on the Supplier, not to run
away from taking any responsibility as and when there occurs an unforeseen
Accident for whatever reason. Even though the intention of passing of the Law
is good to protect those who are affected by any such unforeseen disasters; the
supplier of either the Reactor or the fuel is unconnected with the Operation of
the Unit so established or constructed to the extent that the Supplier is barred
from earning a regular Profit by taking part in sharing the revenue generated
from supply of Power to the Common
General Public to enable the Supplier to bear the cost of Insurance Premium to keep
the Promise so undertook to pay compensation to the victims by virtue of Clause
included in M.O.U.
The
Accident at Bhopal is a separate issue altogether being the Plant was owed by
‘Union Carbide’ was earning a regular Profit through selling its products manufactured by the operator of the Plant in the Market and therefore it cannot disown its responsibility of taking the
liability of the damage done to the Common General Public for any wrong doings
for whatever reason even if the Company go Bankrupt or failing to make an
arrangement with Insurance Company to pay such compensation to common General
Public who are suffering due to negligence of the Operator of the Plant.Therefore,the
action of Govt. of India to demand damages from ‘Union Carbide’ is just and
fair irrespective of the location where the Company is registered.
As
and when Supplier offer ‘Accidental damage protection’ to a customer; it only
restricted to change the physical aspect or composition of the Equipment
supplied but it never offer damage for bodily harm to any while enforcing the
Clause.
As
for example as and when we import ‘Crude Oil’ to process it within the Country
through its various Refineries; there is no liability on the part of the
Supplier to incur an additional cost of compensation, even though we meet with
limitless Accidents from producing Products from it to its end use while
feeding to Engines to run by it. These are inherent bottle necks in using such
Products of mass use.
Therefore,
as and when we import Nuclear Materials, the Supplier liability is limited to
the supply the same and feeding the material to the Reactor. Since the entire
composition of the supply so fed to the Reactor undergoes drastic change, it is
the responsibility of the Producer of the Power or the Operator to provide
compensation to the victims if any as and when there occur an Accident. But if
the supplier is a partner in producing as well as supplying Power to the
Consumers to exit itself as an entity, the supplier too becomes responsible for
such Accidents. How without knowing much about the expertise of the executor of
the Plant, a supplier can stand guarantee of one or the other for its wrong doing?
If
the same Clause is wrongly interpreted; the Country shall need to bear an extra
cost to secure it from a particular source only without offering of a
competition in open Market to take care of the Clause so stated by paying Tax
Payer Money, most indirectly. Under such circumstances, there are chances that
we procure inferior products from ordinary sources that might compromise the
safety of the Plant. Further, such interpretation of Law can never withstand
the debate in International Courts if the matter sees an escalation regarding
the amount of compensation to be offered to victims of such Accidents which is
most likely to come into effect post Accident and is bound to deprive the
victim of all benefits which is otherwise possible to arrive at, if we follow a
simple route to address the issue.
From
my own experience, when the Country made it open to use Contractor for Drilling
of Wells for Onshore & Offshore areas by utilizing Grants from World Bank,
self debated the matter with Officials of World Bank and had changed the entire
M.O.U to allow local Contractors to participate in Tenders floated for the
purpose using local Manpower. Even in B.H.E.L, self introduced a much different
Production line for enhancing Profit to the Company following a debate. These
are just Laws which must see change in meaning or for doing an interpretation
with our expansion of knowledge and not stick to old ideas which are not
beneficial to both Parties.
Therefore,
the observation of Attorney General is just and correct to arrive at a logical
conclusion about interpreting the Law under the present circumstances.
We
must try to change the Design of the present Nuclear Plants from across the
Globe to include freezer around the various Reactors so that we have much
higher control over such Plants.
{NOTE:
Since the matter is off Topic for BBC to publish the write-up notwithstanding fact
that it is conveying meaningful message to the Globe, I am posting Copy at http://mmhazarika.blogspot.in/.We must know that we are all same and equal but we are trying to weight the fact that unless we trust on Mutual understanding, no Growth of us is possible}
(Dr.M.M.HAZARIKA, PhD)
A name retained
by UN; Opinion Leader ‘TIME’
PH: 91-80-41303161, M: 9980644857
ADDRESS:
#105, TRANQUILITY APPT.
4TH BLOCK, 8TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN
KORAMANGALA (S.T BED);
BANGALORE-560047
22/09/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment