New Delhi, Aug 18 (IANS) Relenting to a key demand of the opposition, a parliamentary panel Wednesday recommended inclusion of a clause in the proposed civil nuclear liability bill envisaging ‘clear cut liability’ on the supplier of nuclear equipment or material in case of an accident.
The report of the Standing Committee on Science and Technology was tabled in both houses of parliament amid noisy protests and accusations of a deal between the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The report recommended a trebling in compensation cap to be given by the operator from Rs.500 crore to Rs.1,500 crore, ‘specially keeping in view the present level of inflation and the purchase value of the Indian currency’.
The panel also recommended that while the government may increase the compensation cap, it should not decrease it under any circumstances.
The report also recommended shutting out private players from the sector in India, leaving the operation of nuclear plants in the hands of the government or the government-owned companies.
Giving in to another demand of the opposition BJP, the panel recommended that the time limit for filing compensation claim be raised from 10 years to 20 years since the after-effects of radiation take years to manifest.
However, the inclusion of a clause specifying suppliers’ liability is among the key concessions that helped the government win the support of the BJP.
Agreeing that the expression ‘willful act or gross negligence’ in the draft of the bill tabled in parliament May 7 was ‘quite vague’, the parliamentary panel suggested there should be clear cut liability on the supplier of nuclear equipment or material in case they are found to be defective.
The panel noted that Clause 17(B) in the draft bill gives ‘escape route to the suppliers of the nuclear materials, equipments, services of his employees as their willful act or gross negligence would be difficult to establish in a civil nuclear compensation case’.
This clause became a rallying point for the opposition, which missed no chance to lambast the government for allegedly crafting an escape route for foreign suppliers who were averse to taking the blame in case of an accident.
To hold the supplier accountable, the committee recommended that Clause 17(B) needed to be rephrased as ‘the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services or from the gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services’.
The committee also recommended that the operator, which will be an Indian government entity as per the present laws, ‘must secure his interest through appropriate provisions in the contract with the supplier’.
The panel’s report makes it clear that the operator should have a written contract with the suppliers providing for the right of recourse.
‘The operator may, after compensating the victims, exercise his right of recourse against the supplier in accordance with the provisions of the contract,’ the report recommended.
