Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 75 (ORI)

KALPANA MANDAL v. STATE OF ORISSA

2007-02-02

B.P.DAS, M.M.DAS

body2007
B. P. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are the wife and children of one late Sunil mandal, have filed this writ petition with a prayer to direct the State Government, O. P. 1, to pay them compensation for the death of late Sunil Mandal in police firing. ( 2 ) AN F.. R. was lodged at Simulia Police station on 7-2-2002 at about 9 a. m. alleging therein that the bus, namely, 'dolphine' Dynamic', in which Sunil Mandal was travelling on 6-2-2002, while crossing simulia Police Station, the Police personnel waived the bus to stop, but the driver instead of stopping it, sped away. The Police van which was chasing the bus started firing at the bus and it was found that the passenger sitting towards the left of the driver was instantly killed in the police firing. After receiving the aforesaid information, a case was registered under Section 304,. P. C. against some police personnel of Simulia Police Station. Accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, all the charge-sheeted accused persons have been acquitted. The passenger who died in the police firing was none other than the said Sunil Mandal. After post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased, the doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage following the injury caused to the left Lung and Heart due to gunshot wound over anterior chest wall and the age of the injuries were within 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination, ( 3 ) IT is worthwhile to mention here that a sum of Rs, 1. 00 lakh from the Chief minister's Relief Fund was paid to petitioner no. 1 on 21-3-2002. On being noticed, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of o. Ps. 3 and 4 sworn to by the Offtcer-in-charge, simulia Police Station, confirming the allegation of the petitioners that the deceased, sunil Mandal expired in the police firing while travelling in the bus, on N. H. 5 near village Dhobagadia Crossing under simulia Police Station and in this connection P. S. Case No. 12 was registered. 3 and 4 sworn to by the Offtcer-in-charge, simulia Police Station, confirming the allegation of the petitioners that the deceased, sunil Mandal expired in the police firing while travelling in the bus, on N. H. 5 near village Dhobagadia Crossing under simulia Police Station and in this connection P. S. Case No. 12 was registered. While narrating the details of the incident in paragraph-6 of the counter-affidavit, the dependent has stated that on 7-2-2002 at about 3 p. m. while the Sales Tax Officer along with Vigilance Officer were checking the buses for collection of penalty due to loading of heavy luggage, the 'dolphin' bus bearing Regn. No. ORD-5525 on the plea of parking the vehicle, avoided the detention and sped towards Bhadrak. O. Ps. 3 and 4 have not disputed the fact of death of late sunil Mandal in police firing when he was travelling as a passenger in the bus in question. Further a stand has been taken by the said O. Ps, that the compensation of Rs. 1. 00 lakh paid to the petitioners from the Chief minister's Relief Fund being adequate, the petitioners are not entitled to receive any further amount of compensation. ( 4 ) BY order dated 7-8-2006, this Court, as an interim measure, directed the State government to pay a further sum of Rs. 1. 50 lakhs to the petitioners towards compensation subject to the result of the writ petition. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government in its Home Department or the collector and District Magistrate, Balasore. ( 5 ) AS the fact of death of late Sunil mandal in the manner stated by the petitioners has not been disputed nor has it been disputed that the petitioner are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased-Sunil mandal, we are of the view that late Sunil mandal died consequent upon the irresponsible act of the police in aimlessly firing at the bus, in which the said deceased was travelling as a passenger. Thus, the irresistible conclusion would be that the Slate is liable to compensate the petitioners vicariously. Thus, the irresistible conclusion would be that the Slate is liable to compensate the petitioners vicariously. ( 6 ) THOUGH an objections was raised by the learned counsel for the State that compensation cannot be awarded in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after the decisions rendered by the supreme Court in the case of Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v, State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 : ( AIR 1993 SC 1960 ) : (1993 AIR SCW 2366) and People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India ( AIR 1997 SC 1203 ), law is well settled that in appropriate cases, this Court, can award compensation in a writ petition, to the persons entitled. Moreso when negligence on the part of the O. Ps. is writ large as in the present case. ( 7 ) THE only question, therefore, is that this Court should assess Just and proper compensation to which the petitioners will be entitled to. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners lias submitted that the deceased-Sunil Mandal was aged about 35 years on the date of his death and he was an able bodied youth, who was earning his livelihood by working in an Ice Factory at Paradeep. It Is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in similar cases, there are instances where the state Government has paid mounts of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs to the dependents of persons dying in police firing. Considering all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) would be the just and proper compensation payable to the writ petitioners. Since an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has already been paid to them by the State, we dispose of this writ petition directing the O. Ps. to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. On payment of the same, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of petitioner No. 1 Kalpana mandal and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each in the names of petitioner Nos. On payment of the same, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of petitioner No. 1 Kalpana mandal and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each in the names of petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Maitry Mandal, gayatri Mandal and Pranab Mandal respectively for a period of five years with quarterly interest accrued on the respective amounts being payable to them. ( 8 ) THE writ may be issued accordingly. ( 9 ) A free copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the State. Order accordingly.