Gujarat Bridge Repair Contractors Were “Not Qualified,” the Court Said.

Gujarat Bridge Repair Contractors

The prosecution on Tuesday informed a court that the contractors who worked on the unfortunate suspension bridge repair in Morbi, Gujarat, lacked the necessary training to handle the project.135 people lost their lives when the bridge collapsed on Sunday night.

According to the prosecution, who cited a forensic study, the bridge’s cable was not replaced even though its flooring was changed, and as a result, it was unable to support the weight of the new flooring.

Four of the arrested suspects—two OREVA Group officials and two subcontractors who repaired the bridge—were remanded in police custody by the magistrate’s court until Saturday.

Thus according prosecutor HS Panchal, Chief Judicial Magistrate MJ Khan remanded five additional accused men—including security guards and ticket sales clerks—in judicial custody because police did not request their custody.

Under Indian Penal Code section 304, the police had on Monday filed a case against nine people (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

Dipak Parekh, Dinesh Dave, Prakash Parmar, and Devang Parmar, who were all employed by the OREVA Group as repair contractors, were the four who were held in police custody.

According to a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Panchal informed the court that forensic experts thought the new flooring was to blame for the main cable of the bridge snapping.

“Although the FSL report was delivered in a sealed cover, it was mentioned during the remand argument that only the flooring had been altered and the bridge’s cables had not been replaced.

Four-layered aluminium sheets used for the flooring increased the weight of the bridge, and that weight caused the cable to crack “Panchal informed the press.

Additionally, the court was informed that none of the mending contractors was “qualified” to complete the task.

“Despite this, the bridge’s repairs were granted to these companies in 2007 and again in 2022. Therefore, it was necessary to have custody of the accused in order to learn why they were picked and at whose request they were chosen “explained the prosecutor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *