Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 821 (GAU)

Pradeep Kr. Rajbongshi v. Union of India

2005-12-08

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Both the writ petitions involving claim for compensation in respect of damage to the vehicle belonging to the Petitioner in the first writ petition and the death of the driver of the vehicle, whose father has filed the second writ petition, during the course of Army Operation, were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Facts 2. The Petitioner in WP (C) No. 3083 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the first petition) is an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI), while the deceased son of the Petitioner in WP (C) No. 3085 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the second petition), was the driver of the vehicle (TATA Sumo), bearing registration No. AS-01-M-3714. The said vehicle belongs to the Petitioner in the first petition. According to the Petitioner the vehicle was engaged in his day-to-day business and he was a very successful agent and could procure exceedingly good business. He has given the figure of Rs. 10,72,370.02 as commission from his business for the year 2001-02. He has also indicated his income tax returns for the years 1999, 2000, 2001 standing at Rs. 36,493/- Rs. 58,165/- and Rs. 91,648/- respectively. 3. On 1.12.2002 at about 2-30 PM the handyman of the aforesaid vehicle came running to the residence of the Petitioner in a frightened mood and intimated the Petitioner that the vehicle had been damaged and the driver of the vehicle namely Sri Chandan Rajbongshi, whose father has filed the second writ petition had been killed by a furious mob of villagers of Deharkuria village under Hajo Police Station, in the district of Kamrup. Narrating the incident, the handyman of the vehicle, Shri Pradeep Majumdar stated that while the vehicle was returning from Guwahati with the driver Late Chandan Rajbongshi alongwith one Sri Jayanta Kalita was intercepted by Army personnel at a place called Mukalmua in the district of Nalbari. The Army personnel belonging to the 10th Assam Regiment. The Army personnel asked Sri Jayanta Kalita to get down from the vehicle and thereafter directed the driver and the handyman namely Late Sri Chandan Rajbongshi and Sri Pradeep Majumdar respectively to drive the vehicle to Bortola temporary camp of 10th Assam Regiment falling in the district of Nalbari. The driver and the handyman were verbally informed that the vehicle had been requisitioned. The driver and the handyman were verbally informed that the vehicle had been requisitioned. On reaching Bortola camp, the Army personnel alongwith one Major Ras Thabah boarded the vehicle and as per their instruction the driver and the handyman accompanied them to village Deharkuria. They could learn that the vehicle had been engaged in an Army operation. According to the Petitioners no Assam Police personnel accompanied the Army personnel. On reaching the village, the Army personnel entered the house of one Sri Tamijuddin Ahmed, a retired teacher. The driver and the handyman of the vehicle remained with the vehicle watching the Army action. 4. When the driver and the handyman of the vehicle were waiting for the Army personnel to return, some of the villagers all of a sudden surrounded the vehicle and dragged out the driver and the handyman from the vehicle and took them to a nearby house. Both of them were confined in the house. To make the infuriated mob to understand the role of the driver and the handyman, they intimated the villagers as to how the vehicle was requisitioned alongwith them and that they had no hand in the Army action or if anything was wrong with the same. However, the aggressive mob did not listen to them and attacked them with spears, daggers, lathis etc. as a consequence of which the driver of the vehicle got killed on the spot. However, the handyman could somehow get away from the angry mob and reported the matter to the owner of the vehicle i.e. the Petitioner in the first writ petition. 5. Later on it came to light that during the Army operation, apart from the death of the driver of the vehicle Sri Chandan Rajbongshi, the Army Major with another Army personnel and some villagers also got killed in the operation. On getting the news from the handyman of the vehicle, both the Petitioners rushed to the Army camp at Bortola and upon inquiry as to whether the vehicle was requisitioned or not, could not get any satisfactory reply. Inspite of request being made they were not taken to the place of occurrence and later on they were informed that the dead body of the driver had been sent to Gauhati Medical College for postmortem. The police personnel of Hajo Police Station directed the Petitioners to go there for identification and collection of dead body. Inspite of request being made they were not taken to the place of occurrence and later on they were informed that the dead body of the driver had been sent to Gauhati Medical College for postmortem. The police personnel of Hajo Police Station directed the Petitioners to go there for identification and collection of dead body. Accordingly, the Petitioners rushed to Guwahati and upon identification took the body of the driver to the village. The dead body was handed over to them on 2.12.2002 and later on was cremated on the same day. 6. The vehicle, which got damaged in the incident, was lying at the place of occurrence for about 4-5 days and in the meantime, Hajo Police Station Case Nos. 218/2002 and 219/2002 were registered under Section 147/148/149/302/307/326 IPC and the vehicle was seized in connection with the said Police Cases. At the time of filing of the writ petition the vehicle was lying in a completely damaged condition in the premises of the Hajo Police Station. 7. The Hajo Police Station got the vehicle examined through the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kamrup, Guwahati on 3.1.2003, who in turn submitted his report upon examination of the vehicle with copy of the same to the Petitioner in the first petition. According to the MVI report, the vehicle could not be tested mechanically due to the extensive damage caused to the vehicle. The damage caused to the vehicle are as follows: (i) Front windshield glass A/W channel, body top, driving door, right side body (front to rear), bonnet, bumper, grill, all lights, seat frame, battery wire damaged. (ii) All tyres (four wheels) were found damaged completely alongwith rims. (iii) Engine and gearbox were seem to be damaged due to impact of the accident. (iv) Internal body structure seems to be damaged due to impact of the accident. (v) Battery, dynamo, spare tyre, front A.P. self, radiator found missing from the vehicle. 8. The officer-in-charge of the Hajo Police Station issued a certificate dated 5.2.2003 to the Petitioner confirming the examination of the vehicle by the MVI as the Petitioner was not present when the vehicle was examined by the MVI. The Petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hajo seeking the release of the vehicle, but the same was rejected by order dated 8.1.2003. The Petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hajo seeking the release of the vehicle, but the same was rejected by order dated 8.1.2003. In the meantime the 10th Assam Regiment through the Respondent No. 6 namely Major Kuldeep Kachru, Adjutant 10th Assam Regiment requested the Hajo Police Station vide his letter dated 6.1.2003 to release the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner in the first petition after necessary investigation. In the letter the fact of requisition of the vehicle was admitted and such requisition was stated to be for Army operation in the village. The damage to the vehicle was also admitted in the letter. 9. According to the Petitioners the entire action of the Army personnel towards requisitioning the vehicle was contrary to the provisions of Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicle Act, 1968. It has been averred that any Army operation to combat terrorism or for maintenance of law and order situation in the State of Assam is to be carried out by the Unified Command Structure where the Government of Assam and the Assam Police personnel have a major role to play with their physical presence. The Petitioners have found fault with the Army in requisitioning the vehicle and carrying out the Army operation without associating the civil administration. Consequently, the Army operation, according to the Petitioners was illegal. 10. The Petitioner in the first petition made an application on 3.12.2002 to the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Commanding Officer, 10th Assam Regiment demanding handing over of requisition papers in respect of the vehicle to which no reply was furnished. The Petitioner also lodged an FIR with the Mukalmua Police Station on 18.12.2002 with a copy to the Hajo Police Station. In the FIR the aforesaid incident was narrated with the request to take appropriate action against the Army personnel. However, no steps had been taken on the basis of the FIR. Reliefs sought for 11. While in the first petition, the Petitioner has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,25,248/- with interest @ 18% PA with effect from 1.12.2002 for loss of business in view of damage to the vehicle, in the second petition, the Petitioner, who is the father of the deceased driver has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest @ 18% PA with effect from 1.12.2002 due to the death of his son. 16,25,248/- with interest @ 18% PA with effect from 1.12.2002 for loss of business in view of damage to the vehicle, in the second petition, the Petitioner, who is the father of the deceased driver has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest @ 18% PA with effect from 1.12.2002 due to the death of his son. The claim for Rs. 16,25,248/- has been made assessing the value of the vehicle at Rs. 6,25,248/- and assessing Rs. 10,00,000/- as the loss of income due to the damage to the vehicle. In the second writ petition the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been claimed on the basis of the assessment made showing the monthly income of the deceased son of the Petitioner as Rs. 3,500/- per month and considering the young age of the deceased, which is stated to be 26 years at the time of death. Defence of the Respondents 12. Counter affidavits have been filed by the Union of India, represented by the Respondents No. 1 to 4. The State Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. The defence of the Respondents in both the cases is common. The fact relating to requisitioning vehicle has been broadly admitted by the Respondents. However, their plea is that since no civilian vehicle was provided to the Army camp at Bortola engaged in maintaining law and order in the area and on the fateful day also no civil vehicle was attached with the Army camp, in order to reach within the shortest time frame, the village Deharkuria, on receipt of definite information regarding presence of militants in the village, they were left with no option than to utilize the services of the TATA Sumo. They have admitted that the vehicle was used not strictly in keeping with the laid down norms of requisitioning vehicles, but the services of the same was utilized after explaining the urgency and circumstances to the driver and the handyman and being duty bound to maintain law and order. According to them in such circumstances, an ex-post facto sanction from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is obtained and in the instant case also a letter to that effect was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari vide Annexure-A letter dated 21.12.2002. 13. According to them in such circumstances, an ex-post facto sanction from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is obtained and in the instant case also a letter to that effect was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari vide Annexure-A letter dated 21.12.2002. 13. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the Respondents have emphasized on the need and justification to utilize the vehicle on grounds of extreme necessity for maintenance of law and order and to protect the common men from the clutches of the militants and that the course of action had to be adopted on receipt of definite information about the presence of militants engaged in extortion activity. As regards the association of the civil administration and for that matter the Assam Police personnel in the operation, the Respondents have stated that since the operation was to be carried out with extreme urgency and the jurisdictional police station was in the opposite direction, the police personnel could not be contacted. According to them, even otherwise also such a course of action is not mandatory considering the nature of military operations. As regards the safety of the civilians including the driver and the handyman, the Respondents have made the following statements in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. Furthermore, while going in for the operation knowing fully well that safety of all innocent civilian is uppermost, the vehicle alongwith the civilian driver and the handyman were left well away from the site where the militants were presumed to have come within the village Deharkuria. The fact that the driver and the handyman waited all alone for the Army personnel to return clearly amplifies that they had been taken into confidence and were willing to assist in helping the Army personnel and had full faith in them. If the driver and the handyman were taken by force, they had adequate time to run away from the place where they were left all alone. Moreover, the Army neither had any intention nor design to misuse the vehicle, which is apparent from the fact that the officer leading the operation late Maj. RAS Thabah and Late Sep. Devaj Deuri were killed during the same operation. The application of the individual dated 1.12.2002 to 10th Assam Regiment regarding requisition papers for the TATA Sumo vehicle was forwarded to district administration vide 10th Assam Regiment letter No. 171/1/A dated 21.12.2002. 14. RAS Thabah and Late Sep. Devaj Deuri were killed during the same operation. The application of the individual dated 1.12.2002 to 10th Assam Regiment regarding requisition papers for the TATA Sumo vehicle was forwarded to district administration vide 10th Assam Regiment letter No. 171/1/A dated 21.12.2002. 14. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have denied any harassment meted out to the Petitioners in the matter of release of the vehicle and the dead body of the driver. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit they have stated that to assist the Petitioner to get the necessary documents from the civil administration, a meeting was organized between the civil administration and the Petitioner and the civil administration had asked the Petitioner to prefer a letter from the Insurance Company, which was allegedly refusing to clear the insurance claim for the vehicle without requisition slip, as the contention of the civil administration was that all such unnatural calamities are covered under the Comprehensive Insurance Policy covering the vehicle. They have denied that because of the damage to the vehicle there was loss of income of the Petitioner in the first petition and that there was any restriction on free movement and conduct of business of the Petitioner. They have explained that the requisitioning of the vehicle was under exceptional circumstances, where the task in hand was to be achieved keeping in mind the objective of maintenance of law and order. They have contended that the Petitioner must not be allowed to derive mileage out of the extra-ordinary situation, which was neither intended to be done nor desired, but the Army had to utilize the services of the said vehicle. 15. As regards the estimated cost of the vehicle, the Respondents have stated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that as per the estimate made by the Insurance Company, the market value of the vehicle was Rs. 4,35,000/- and taking into the account the depreciation for the period spanning from the date of purchase of the vehicle to the date of the accident, the value of the vehicle stood at Rs. 3,90,000/-. Thus, according to the Respondents the claim for Rs. 16,25,248/- is not tenable, more so, when the damage to the vehicle was not by way of any desire or intention but on account of unnatural circumstances. The Respondents have annexed the estimate prepared by the Insurance Company. 16. 3,90,000/-. Thus, according to the Respondents the claim for Rs. 16,25,248/- is not tenable, more so, when the damage to the vehicle was not by way of any desire or intention but on account of unnatural circumstances. The Respondents have annexed the estimate prepared by the Insurance Company. 16. As regards the claim of the Petitioner for compensation in respect of damage to the vehicle, the Respondents in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit have stated that the vehicle being under comprehensive cover of insurance, it is the liability of the Insurance Company. They have referred to the statement of the Petitioner made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the MVI had carried out an inspection and a report stating all damages to the vehicle for claim for insurance was submitted for necessary action on the part of the Petitioner. Finally, it has been contended by the Respondents that there was neither any tort nor criminal wrong committed by any of the Respondents. 17. In the counter affidavit filed in the second writ petition, the Respondents have more or less furnished the same explanation relating to the incident and their liability to pay compensation on account of death of the son of the Petitioner who happened to be the driver of the vehicle. They have highlighted as to how the driver was killed by the villagers under a mistaken identity considering him to be a member of the militants group. They have also highlighted as to how even the Army personnel and some civilians were also killed in the operation. While expressing their regret for the death of the driver of the vehicle, the Respondents have contended that such sacrifices often become inevitable to safeguard the sovereignty, national integrity and larger interest of the democratic society of India. 18. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in the first petition reiterating the stand in the writ petition. Some datas have been furnished relating to the value of the vehicle and the loss of business of the Petitioner. It has been stated that the Petitioner has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 5,07,230/- for the vehicle, whereas the initial loan burden was of Rs. 4,09,105/-. According to the Petitioner he had to pay an amount of Rs. 2,82,122/- to the financer towards liquidation of the loan as per their legal notice dated 4.11.2004. It has been stated that the Petitioner has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 5,07,230/- for the vehicle, whereas the initial loan burden was of Rs. 4,09,105/-. According to the Petitioner he had to pay an amount of Rs. 2,82,122/- to the financer towards liquidation of the loan as per their legal notice dated 4.11.2004. The Petitioner has asserted that the escalation of the loan burden has proximity and direct consequence of the illegal action of the Army leading to the incident on the fateful day. 19. From the statements made in the rejoinder affidavit (Paragraph-9), it appears that after assessment of the damage caused to the vehicle, the Insurance Company has made the payment of Rs. 1,47,000/-, which according to the Petitioner has been adjusted towards liquidating the loan by the financer. It also appears that the vehicle has been released in favour of the Petitioner in January, 2004 and the same has been repaired. However, according to the Petitioner, taking into account the actual cost of repairing and the adjustment of loan etc. the total expenditure incurred by him towards repairing the damages stood at Rs. 5,07,230/- and thus, he is entitled to the claim made in the writ petition. Arguments 20. Mr. B.C. Pathak, learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the Petitioners in both the cases are entitled to payment of compensation from the Respondents, which include apart from the Army authorities, the state authorities also. Referring to the provisions of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicle Act, 1968, Mr. Pathak submitted that the entire action on the part of the Army authorities towards requisitioning the vehicle being contrary to the established procedure for requisitioning vehicle, the Respondents are liable to pay compensation both on account of damage to the vehicle and loss of business to the Petitioner as well as on account of death of the driver of the vehicle. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 (2) Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960 (3) Vim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494 (4) Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026 21. Countering the arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Countering the arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. H. Rahman, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India and the Army authorities, while expressing his regret for the death of the driver of the vehicle submitted that it is not a case of payment of any compensation as no tortuous or criminal liability is attached to the Army action, which had to be resorted to under extreme necessity. He submitted that the vehicle had to be requisitioned under extra-ordinary situation on receipt of the tips of presence of militant in the village in question engaged in extortion activities. He submitted that although the vehicle may not have been requisitioned strictly as per the laid down procedure, but considering the urgency in the matter, the Army authorities had to requisition the same and the post-facto approval having been sought for, the requirement as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1968 was duly complied with. According to him under the given circumstances neither of the Petitioners is entitled to any compensation. Decision 22. The position, which has emerged from the aforesaid narration of facts is that the Army authorities did not requisition the vehicle for any merrymaking or for any private use, but the same was requisitioned for providing safety to the villagers from the clutches of the militants, who at that point of time were engaged in extortion activities. The emergent nature of the job under extra-ordinary situation is amply fortified from the fact that in the operation two Army personnel, one in the rank of Major and another in the rank sepoy were also killed. Unfortunately the villagers upon a wrong identity of the driver and handyman of the vehicle with that of the militants got enraged, which resulted in eventual death of the driver. 23. If the vehicle had to be requisitioned in the aforesaid extra-ordinary and extreme urgent situation, it cannot be said that such requisition being not strictly in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1968 was illegal and consequently any activities carried out by the Army personnel making use of the vehicle are also illegal. At the first instance, it is on record that the Army authorities had written letter to the district administration for grant of ex-post facto approval of the requisition of the vehicle. At the first instance, it is on record that the Army authorities had written letter to the district administration for grant of ex-post facto approval of the requisition of the vehicle. Although, it is not discernible as to whether any such approval was expressly granted or not, but in absence of any refusal to grant such approval and considering the facts and circumstances in which the vehicle had to be requisitioned and the consequential participation of the authorities of the State administration with the Army authorities relating to the incident dilutes the vigor of the procedural niceties towards requisitioning a vehicle. 24. There being no negative response from the State administration to the letter of the Army authorities seeking ex-post facto approval, there was also tacit approval towards such requisitioning of the vehicle. Thus the plea of the Petitioner that there being violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1968, the consequential action of the Army was also illegal cannot be accepted. After all the Army was engaged in maintaining law and order situation and to provide safety to the public risking the lives of the Army personnel and in such circumstances the procedural niceties with technical precision towards requisitioning a vehicle will have to give way to the extreme and pressing necessity of safe guarding the larger public interest. 25. It has been rightly contended by the Respondents in their counter affidavit that no force was applied to the driver and the handyman to drive the vehicle to the particular destination and the facts and circumstances leading to requisitioning the vehicle were duly explained to both of them, inasmuch as when the Army operation was on, the driver and the handyman remained seated in the vehicle and they could have easily fled away from the place of occurrence. Instead realizing the gravity of the situation they remained with the vehicle with the sense of duty to the Army and for that matter to the public. Unfortunately the driver had to die under a mistaken identity. 26. The moment the vehicle was requisitioned with the services of the driver and the handyman, they became party to the Army operation. The death of the driver was undoubtedly during the Army operation. Unfortunately the driver had to die under a mistaken identity. 26. The moment the vehicle was requisitioned with the services of the driver and the handyman, they became party to the Army operation. The death of the driver was undoubtedly during the Army operation. Although, it cannot be said that there was any tortuous or criminal liability of the Army towards the death of the driver, but at the same time he being part and parcel of the Army operation, his duty and responsibility which eventually resulted in his death cannot go unrewarded. 27. The decisions on which Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel for the Petitioners have placed reliance are all relating to violation of protection of life and personal liberty as envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. All the cases are relating to curtailment of personal liberty and failure to protect human life at the hands of the administrative authorities. In such circumstances emphasizing the need for protection of fundamental right and human rights and curbing of police atrocities the Apex Court held that the victims were entitled to compensation as public law remedy irrespective of their right to pursue remedy under private law. 28. In the instant case, it cannot be said to be a case of any atrocity perpetrated by the Army personnel to the Petitioner of the first petition and the deceased son of the Petitioner in the second petition. The position has been explained above. Undoubtedly there is no tortuous and criminal liability on the part of the Army authorities. This is also not a case of violation of the rights envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus the cases referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are of no help to the case of the Petitioner in the second petition. However, at the same time the sacrifice of the driver of the vehicle about which the Respondents themselves have mentioned in their counter affidavit stating interalia that sacrifices often become inevitable to safeguard the sovereignty, national integrity and larger interest of the democratic society of India, cannot be ignored and put to oblivion. 29. In fact, the Petitioner in the second petition made an application to the State Chief Minister on 16.12.2002 (Annexure-VIII) praying for payment of ex-gratia and other financial assistance to the members of the deceased family. 29. In fact, the Petitioner in the second petition made an application to the State Chief Minister on 16.12.2002 (Annexure-VIII) praying for payment of ex-gratia and other financial assistance to the members of the deceased family. Be it stated here that the deceased was unmarried and as per the averments made in the writ petition he left behind his parents, grandmother, one sister and one brother. At the time of death the deceased was a young man of 26 years and his monthly income was Rs. 3,500/-. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner in the second petition is entitled to ex-gratia payment on account of death of his son, who was earning member of the family. 30. It is not known as to whether the Army authorities have made any such ex gratia payment in respect of the deceased Army Major and the Army Sepoy. Since the deceased son of the Petitioner in the second petition accompanied the Army personnel as one of the members in the Army operation and he died during the operation, irrespective of no tortuous and criminal liability of the Army authorities, the ends of justice demands payment of ex gratia to the members of the family commensurating to the amount which must have been paid to the members of the deceased Army personnel who died in the operation. If no such ex gratia payment has been made to the members of the Army personnel, I am of the considered opinion that considering the age of the deceased and his monthly income, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lakhs) should be paid as ex gratia payment to the family members of the deceased driver and for that matter to the Petitioner in the second petition. 31. Since the Army was engaged in maintaining law and order situation on behalf of the State and the entire operation was in the nature of aid to the State administration, I am of the considered opinion that the liability to pay compensation lies with the State administration. The State Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit controverting its liability. Situated thus, a direction is issued to the Chief Secretary of the State (Respondent No. 1) to make the aforesaid ex gratia payment of Rs. The State Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit controverting its liability. Situated thus, a direction is issued to the Chief Secretary of the State (Respondent No. 1) to make the aforesaid ex gratia payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lakhs) to the Petitioner in the second petition positively within three months from today failing which interest @ 18% PA will accrue to the principal amount. 32. After having answered the second petition in the above manner, I now deal with the claim made in the first petition. The situation in which the vehicle was requisitioned need not be repeated again. It has also been held that there was no illegal requisition. If the vehicle got damaged, such damage was naturally under cover of the comprehensive insurance policy for which the payment has been made. Had the vehicle been damaged in any other incident, the Petitioner perhaps would not have had any other plea or demand for payment of extra compensation as has been claimed by him. 33. A vehicle is insured under comprehensive insurance scheme covering any damage to the vehicle under any incident and loss of the vehicle. The amount of compensation paid on that account cannot exceed merely because the vehicle got damaged in an Army operation significance of which has been discussed above. In fact, the Petitioner made insurance claim on the basis of the MVI report and he has been paid an amount of Rs. 1,47,000/-. It is another thing as to whether as claimed by him, he had incurred any further expenditure towards repairing the vehicle. 34. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner in the first petition is not entitled to any compensation as claimed by him on account of damage to the vehicle and the alleged loss of income. There is no material to establish the alleged loss of income by the Petitioner because of the damage to the vehicle. In any case this aspect of the matter cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, more particularly when the requisition of the vehicle has been held to legally valid. This, however, cannot escape the liability of the Respondents towards payment of requisition charges in respect of the vehicle payable to the Petitioner. In any case this aspect of the matter cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, more particularly when the requisition of the vehicle has been held to legally valid. This, however, cannot escape the liability of the Respondents towards payment of requisition charges in respect of the vehicle payable to the Petitioner. The vehicle was requisitioned on the fateful day i.e. 1.12.2002 and as per the statement in the rejoinder affidavit, same was released in January, 2004. Till then, firstly it was under requisition of the Army and thereafter under seizure of the Hajo Police Station. Had the vehicle been released at the earliest opportunity, the Petitioner could have repaired the same and put on road. However, the release of the vehicle was delayed by about one year. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that for the period from 1.12.2002 till release of the vehicle in January, 2004, the Petitioner is entitled to the normal requisition charges as admissible under the rules. 35. Applying the same analogy as regards the payment of compensation to the Petitioner in the second petition, the requisition charges shall be born by the State Respondents. Such payment shall be ensured by the Chief Secretary of the State by issuing appropriate direction to the authorities concerned and the payment shall be made within three months from today. 36. Both the writ petitions are answered in the above manner leaving the parties to bear their own costs.