Fire Destroys Upholstery Shop and Nearby Home in Roi Et, Losses Estimated in Millions

[Georgealbert]

 

Picture from responders.

 

A fire tore through an upholstery shop in a residential area of Roi Et Province during the afternoon of 18 April, rapidly spreading to a neighbouring home and causing damage estimated in the millions of baht.

 

The blaze broke out at approximately 16:40 at an upholstery shop, known locally as Sri Thewa Upholstery, located on Soi 4 of Sri Thewa Road in Nai Mueang Subdistrict. Police from Mueang Roi Et Station quickly responded to the emergency and coordinated with municipal fire services and rescue teams to tackle the inferno.

 

 

Upon arrival, firefighters found the single-storey, five-unit shop engulfed in flames. The intense fire destroyed at least ten industrial sewing machines and two motorbikes inside the building. A car parked outside the shop began to catch fire at the front, but was pushed to safety by quick-acting responders, but still resulting in burn and heat damage.

 

Fanned by strong winds, the flames spread to an adjacent two-storey house, compounding the damage. Firefighters battled the blaze for over an hour and half before managing to bring it under control.

 

Initial estimates suggest damages running into several million baht. Investigators from the forensic department were called in to determine the exact cause of the fire.

 

Authorities praised the swift coordination between police, municipal disaster response teams, and volunteers, which prevented further destruction and potential casualties.

 

-- 2025-04-19

 

[jacnl2000]

Despite today’s potential for preparation, the article (excluding the Thai text) focuses mostly on the fire event and emergency response, but not on the preventative layer that should’ve preceded it. It gives us what happened, not why it had to happen that way. It fails to ask the uncomfortable question:

Why did it reach the point where fleeing was the only remaining option?

 

[Georgealbert]

12 minutes ago, jacnl2000 said:

Despite today’s potential for preparation, the article (excluding the Thai text) focuses mostly on the fire event and emergency response, but not on the preventative layer that should’ve preceded it. It gives us what happened, not why it had to happen that way. It fails to ask the uncomfortable question:

Why did it reach the point where fleeing was the only remaining option?

 

Sorry but how can anyone comment on where the preventative measures went wrong, when the cause of the fire is not yet known and under investigation.

 

The fire safety measures under regulations are designed to protect life and there were no death or injuries. This type of premises is open fronted, so adequate means of escape. No country would require this size premises to have sprinklers for life safety and no insurance company would require it for property protection. Images of the fire clearly shows initial attempts to use fire extinguishers, so suitable first aid firefighting equipment was in place.

 

Yes fire prevention, why the fire started, can be reviewed once the cause has been identified.
 

The real issue here is why the fire spread beyond the building of origin. This will be depend on what local building acts, say about separation between buildings and if in fact these premises were deemed suitable for industrial/commerical use in a residential area.

[jacnl2000]

2 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Sorry but how can anyone comment on where the preventative measures went wrong, when the cause of the fire is not yet known and under investigation.

 

The fire safety measures under regulations are designed to protect life and there were no death or injuries. This type of premises is open fronted, so adequate means of escape. No country would require this size premises to have sprinklers for life safety and no insurance company would require it for property protection. Images of the fire clearly shows initial attempts to use fire extinguishers, so suitable first aid firefighting equipment was in place.

 

Yes fire prevention, why the fire started, can be reviewed once the cause has been identified.
 

The real issue here is why the fire spread beyond the building of origin. This will be depend on what local building acts, say about separation between buildings and if in fact these premises were deemed suitable for industrial/commercial use in a residential area.

 

Thank you for the thoughtful technical clarification—it's absolutely true that determining the root cause of the fire is crucial, and that investigations take time. And yes, the presence of fire extinguishers and the open-fronted design likely contributed to a successful evacuation, which is no small thing.

At the same time, I think it’s fair to reflect on how the situation escalated to the point where fleeing became the only remaining option. While regulatory compliance may have been met, it raises important questions about whether preparedness and early containment efforts were truly sufficient—especially in a workshop dealing with highly flammable materials like upholstery. Could earlier action have prevented such a severe outcome?

Even before the cause is fully known, it seems reasonable to consider whether staff training, layout, or other practical safety measures could have helped reduce the impact. The fact that the fire spread beyond the shop and caused significant damage to a neighboring home, as you rightly mentioned, highlights zoning and building separation issues—areas that may warrant closer attention moving forward.

So while we shouldn’t rush to conclusions, there’s value in using this incident to ask whether the current framework—not just for fire response, but especially for risk anticipation—is truly aligned with the realities of how and where people work and live today.