Team Herald
PANJIM: The Goa Human Rights Commission (GHRC) on Monday ruled that there was no negligence on the part of the government in the death of Delhi-based youth, who drowned at Harvalem waterfalls in August last year.
Rahul Kumar from Delhi in an online application to the Commission had claimed that his brother Harsh Rajesh Kumar had drowned at Harvalem waterfalls due to negligence of the Goa government and the Tourism Department.
The incident had occurred on August 23, 2021, when Harsh Rajesh Kumar along with his other friends had gone to the waterfall for a picnic.
Rahul in his complaint stated that his brother drowned as there were no lifeguards to save him and that due government’s irresponsibility his brother lost his life.
The North Goa Collector in his reply said that as per the post-morterm report, Harsh Kumar’s death was accidental. Also a security of a nearby temple in his statement said that the deceased had entered the deep water without heeding to his appeal and the deceased was fully responsible for the incident.
The respondent also submitted that the reports of the Bicholim Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Bicholim SDPO and the Bicholim police.
The Department of Tourism told the Commission that during monsoon from June to September every year, all the beaches in the State are closed for the public for entering into the water or swimming as the sea and all rivers including the waterfall areas, get flooded and become rough and perilous and unsafe for swimming or bathing.
The department brought to the notice of the Commission that the tragic incident occurred during monsoon when the beaches are closed.
The department said that they were not in any way responsible for the incident since the Harvalem waterfall area is not included in the tender of lifeguarding.
Disposing of the proceedings, the three-member Commission comprising chairman Justice U V Bakre and members Judge Desmond D’Costa and Judge Pramod Kamat found that there was no violation of human rights by the respondents. Also there was no negligence on the part of both the respondents and that the victim had ventured into water at his own risk, it said.
