Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 155 (GAU)

Sakina Begum v. State of Assam

2004-03-03

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The State carriage bus under registration No. AMZ 5824 belonging to the petitioner was requisitioned on 13.4.96 by the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Guwahati. While on requisition, the bus met with an accident on 14.4.96 and got completely damaged. The amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioner is the subject-matter of dispute and the claim made in this writ petition. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner purchased the vehicle with the financial assistance of Rs.1,68,171 on 18.11.84 and such financial assistance was only in respect of the engine and chassis which was bought at a cost of Rs.1,99,400. The cost of body construction of the bus has been stated to be Rs.92,000. 3. The petitioner on receipt of the information regarding the accident of her bus made correspondences with the authorities claiming compensation. At one stage, the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup requested the Assistant Inspector General of Police (A), Assam to sanction Rs.6,89,700 for necessary repairing works and another amount of Rs.2,62,275 for purchase of necessary spare parts. It will be pertinent to mention here that the accident rendered the bus completely damaged beyond repair. By letter dated 23.10,98, the Government of Assam in the Home Department wrote a letter to the Accountant General, Assam, conveying the sanction of Rs.3,07,151 to the petitioner in pursuance of the decisions of the Committee of Enquiry. Such sanction of the amount was subject to the following conditions: (1) The owner of the Bus will furnish a legally valid undertaking to the effect she would not make any further claim of compensation/requisitioned rent etc. for the requisition Bus No. AME 5824 and she will transfer the ownership of the vehicle to the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup. (2) The Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, in turn, will dispose the vehicle by auction and deposition the sale proceeds in Govt. account 4. Disclosing the aforesaid facts, the petitioner, without mentioning anything as to whether she has received the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,07,151 has made the following statements in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. "5. That on the basis of the aforesaid proposal dt. 16.8.96 the Government sanctioned an amount of Rs.307151.00 for payment of the compensation to the petitioner due to damage of her Bus No. AMZ-5824. "5. That on the basis of the aforesaid proposal dt. 16.8.96 the Government sanctioned an amount of Rs.307151.00 for payment of the compensation to the petitioner due to damage of her Bus No. AMZ-5824. The petitioner was accordingly intimated about the sanction of the said amount as per the letter dated 23.10.98 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home (A) Department. Unfortunately however, in this sanctioned letter two conditions were imposed against the Rules. Firstly, the petitioner was called upon to furnish a undertaking to the effect that she would not make any claim from the authorities for requisitioned of the vehicle beyond the above amount of Rs.307151.00 and further, she would have to transfer the ownership of vehicle in favour of the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup. In this sanctioned letter it was further directed that the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Guwahati would dispose the vehicle by auction and deposit the sale proceed in Government's account. The petitioner could not accept the said condition and accordingly the matter was deferred. 6. That the petitioner states that of late she could not but agree to the condition under strain and duress from the authorities who are forcing her to give the undertaking and transfer the vehicle. If she refuses to accept the conditions her due payable amount will not be given and if she does agree to that she would be under-paid. The stand of the authorities is thus illegal, untenable, arbitrary, undue and intentional beyond its being legally valid. However, the petitioner has signed the papers for transfer the ownership of vehicle and intends to submit the same in favour of the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Guwahati but as regards the claim for further compensation she is not willing to submit the undertaking waving out the compensation in full." 5. From the aforesaid averments made in the writ petition, it is not discernible as to whether the petitioner agreed to the sanctioned amount and also as to whether she in fact already received the amount by the time, the writ petition was filed. According to the petitioner she is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.9,51,975 for damage of the vehicle and an additional amount of Rs.5,55,000 as compensation for retaining the vehicle under requisition with effect from 13.4.96 @ Rs.500 per day. According to the petitioner she is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.9,51,975 for damage of the vehicle and an additional amount of Rs.5,55,000 as compensation for retaining the vehicle under requisition with effect from 13.4.96 @ Rs.500 per day. A further prayer has been made in the writ petition to direct the respondents to release the amount of Rs.3,07,151 already sanctioned towards compensation without any demand for furnishing the undertaking as was directed to be given by the aforesaid letter dated 23.10.98. Interest @ 18%.p.a. till realization of the entire amount has also be claimed. An interim prayer was made for a direction to the Superintendent of Police to release the sanctioned amount of Rs.3,07,151 without the undertaking asked for and without prejudice to her case in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition was filed on 13.5.99 although was made ready on 28.4.99 as per the endorsement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was moved on 14.5.99. The interim prayer made for release of the aforesaid sanctioned amount was rejected. After issuance of notice the respondents entered appearance in the case by filing their affidavit controverting the claim of the petitioner towards the claim for compensation beyond Rs.3,07,151. In the affidavit filed by the respondents, they have annexed the undertaking given by the petitioner in terms of the above quoted clauses contained in the letter dated 23.10.98. Such undertaking was furnished by the petitioner by way of swearing an affidavit and submitting the same before the respondents. The affidavit also reveals that the petitioner has also received the aforesaid sanctioned amount without any protest. As per the revelation made in the affidavit, a committee was constituted to find out the total depreciated value of the vehicle on the basis of the government circular dated 28.5.83 laying down the guidelines for the purpose. The committee upon evaluation of the attending materials and circumstances and taking into account the evaluation made by the competent Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kamrup, estimated the amount of compensation at Rs.3,07,151. The committee upon evaluation of the attending materials and circumstances and taking into account the evaluation made by the competent Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kamrup, estimated the amount of compensation at Rs.3,07,151. Thereafter with due formality and obtaining the undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the petitioner to the effect that she would not make any further claim and the ownership of the vehicle would stand transferred in the name of the Superintendent of Police and that the said Superintendent in turn would dispose of the vehicle, the sanctioned amount was disbursed to the petitioner. In the affidavit it has been highlighted as to how the petitioner accepted the amount without any reservation and protest and clearly giving the undertaking that she would not make any further claim of compensation. The amount of compensation was paid to the petitioner being the value of the vehicle as was fixed by the said committee as per the established procedure and system of assessment taking into account the year of purchase of the vehicle which was 1984. Thus it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner having voluntarily accepted the amount, there is no question of entertaining any further claim and that too by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. 7. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of hearing, at one stage submitted that the petitioner received the sanctioned amount only after filing of the writ petition. On being pointed out that the undertaking was given by her in the form an affidavit dated 28.12.98, he submitted that although the affidavit was sworn in on 28.12.98, the same was not submitted to the authorities and it was only after filing of the writ petition, it was submitted. Eventually he admitted that the petitioner received the sanctioned amount on 5.5.99 which is before filing of the writ petition on 13.5.99. However, he submitted that such acceptance of the amount was under compulsion and was always subject to the out come of the writ petition. Referring various parameters relating to compensation, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as has been claimed by her in the writ petition. 8. Mr. However, he submitted that such acceptance of the amount was under compulsion and was always subject to the out come of the writ petition. Referring various parameters relating to compensation, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as has been claimed by her in the writ petition. 8. Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned Government advocate on the other hand submitted that on the face of it the claim made by the petitioner is an afterthought and under no circumstances the petitioner is entitled to the exorbitant compensation as has been claimed by her. He further submitted that the petitioner having furnished the undertaking without any reservation and having received the amount as was sanctioned to her, she is estopped from making further claim in the form a writ petition and that too without any foundation. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. The admitted position is that the petitioner accepted the sanctioned amount by furnishing the required undertaking and it was only thereafter she filed a writ petition without making any mention about such a position. The averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 quoted above are nothing but beating around the bush. In the statements the petitioner has cleverly withheld the information relating to her acceptance of the sanctioned amount of compensation after furnishing the undertaking. She has even gone to the extent of making an interim prayer on 13.5.99 by way of passing an interim direction for release of the sanctioned amount in spite of the fact that the amount was already received by her on 5.5.99 as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing. Thus, there was misrepresentation and suppression of material fact on the part of the petitioner. She even has not disclosed the factum of furnishing the undertaking in the form an affidavit not to speak of annexing a copy of the same. But for the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents the case of the petitioner would have been taken on its face value. On this score alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner could not have taken the writ court for a joyous ride and by way of taking a chance for favourable consideration with material suppression of fact. 10. On this score alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner could not have taken the writ court for a joyous ride and by way of taking a chance for favourable consideration with material suppression of fact. 10. The petitioner admittedly accepted the sanctioned amount without any reservation and protest before filing the writ petition and after furnishing the clear undertaking in the form an affidavit that she would not make any further claim for compensation. However, she cleverly withheld that information while filing the writ petition. The Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 is a self-contained code providing provisions for compensation etc. As per Section 6 of the said Act, if the owner of the vehicle is aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined, he may make an application to the State Government for referring the matter to the Court. The term "court" has been defined in the Act itself. From the date of receiving the compensation as was sanctioned to her, the petitioner never raised any objection before the Government and it was the Government of Assam who had sanctioned the amount. Not only this she also voluntarily furnished her undertaking in the form an affidavit accepting the awarded compensation. It is only thereafter she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court withholding the material particulars and misrepresenting the facts as noticed above. 11. The vehicle in question was of 1984 made and got completely destroyed in the accident to the extent of beyond repairing. As per her own admission the vehicle cost her an amount of Rs.3,91,400 (1,99,400+92,000). Taking into account, the disparagement of the value of the vehicle over the years and also the fact that the amount of compensation was determined and fixed by the committee as was set up which took into account the guidelines as formulated by letter dated 2.5.83 and also the assessment made by the competent MVI, I am of the considered opinion that no illegality has been committed in fixing the amount of compensation. The petitioner had also accepted the amount by furnishing her undertaking without any reservation and protest even before filing the writ petition. The petitioner had also accepted the amount by furnishing her undertaking without any reservation and protest even before filing the writ petition. Now she cannot resile back from that position and cannot be allowed to agitate her alleged grievance on the grounds set out in the writ petition which are admittedly with material suppression of fact, so as to take a chance for favourable consideration. The writ petition was made ready on 28.4.99 as per the endorsement given by the learned counsel for the petitioner and yet the same was filed on 13.5.99 and was moved on 14.5.99. It is not understood as to why even after making the writ petition ready on 28.4.99, it was not filed till 13.5.99 more particularly in view of the fact that in between the period from 28.4.99 to 13.5.99, the petitioner withdrew the sanctioned amount of compensation without any reservation and protest, rather furnishing the undertaking of not making any further claim for compensation in the form of an affidavit. The writ petition was moved without disclosing the material fact of acceptance of the sanctioned amount on 5.5.99 and furnishing of the undertaking in the form of an affidavit. This kind of a conduct on the part of the petitioner draws a strong presumption against the bonafideness on the part of the writ petitioner in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. 12. There is another aspect of the matter, the writ petition was moved on 14.5.99 making an interim prayer for a direction to the respondents to release the sanctioned amount without any undertaking which was, however, rejected. On that occasion also this court was misled towards making a consideration for the interim order which had already become redundant in view of the fact that before making such a prayer the petitioner had already accepted the sanctioned amount without any reservation and protest furnishing the undertaking not to make any further claim and transferring the ownership of the vehicle to the Superintendent of Police. Thus on that count also, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact. The matter does not rest there. Had there been any inadvertent mistake in making such a prayer, the petitioner could have mend the position by clarifying the matter by way of filing an additional affidavit which was also not done by the petitioner. Thus on that count also, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact. The matter does not rest there. Had there been any inadvertent mistake in making such a prayer, the petitioner could have mend the position by clarifying the matter by way of filing an additional affidavit which was also not done by the petitioner. She has also not filed any affidavit-in-reply controverting the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions and conclusions arrived at, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed awarding a cost of Rs.5000. Petition dismissed.