Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 402 (JK)

Suraj Singh v. Union Of India

2009-08-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2009
1. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as SPO on 13.08.1997 and was performing his duties in Police Line, Ramban upto 27.03.2003. On noticing satisfactory performance of the petitioner, the Army Officers made a request to the Superintendent of Police, Ramban for his deputation and accordingly the petitioner and other SPOs came to be deputed with 23rd Rashtriya Rifle for operations and conducted the operations successfully. On 19.10.2003, one Rajesh Kumar, an army personal of 23rd Rashtriya Rifle at Nachalana was sleeping in the tent and when he wakeup his hand suddenly touched the trigger which was loaded and the said bullet first hit the chest of army personnel and thereafter hit the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injury. He was operated in Military Hospital and the said injury rendered him permanent disabled. Further, it is contended that due to said injury, the petitioner has become impotent and is not in a position to enjoy sex and cohabitation with his wife. The petitioner sustained said injury due to negligence of said army personal, namely, Sh. Rajesh Kumar. Respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.13 lacs along with interest @ 15% p.a in equal share. 2. The respondents have filed reply. Respondents 1 to 3 have stated that as the disputed questions of facts are involved, therefore, the petitioner had to file a civil suit instead of filing the petition in hand. 3. They have admitted in reply to paras 9,10 and 13 of the writ petition that the petitioner has suffered 100% disability which is severe and permanent one, due to negligence of Naik Rajesh. Further, it is stated that FIR was lodged in the Police Station, copy of which is annexed with the reply as Annexure-R.1. However, they have stated that the petitioner was engaged by the State Government and was deputed with the Army, thus respondents 1 to 3 are not liable to pay compensation and cannot be saddled with the liability. 4. Respondents 4 to 6 have neither admitted nor denied the averments contained in the writ petition in paras 1 to 12. They have stated that petitioner has not sustained injury due to negligence of the answering respondents and have admitted that he has suffered injury due to negligence of personnel of respondents 1 to 3. 4. Respondents 4 to 6 have neither admitted nor denied the averments contained in the writ petition in paras 1 to 12. They have stated that petitioner has not sustained injury due to negligence of the answering respondents and have admitted that he has suffered injury due to negligence of personnel of respondents 1 to 3. Report came to be registered in "Roznamacha" of Police Station, Banihal. It is contended in reply to paras 20 and 21 of the writ petition that the petitioner has sustained injury while performing his duties with Army and has suffered 100% disability and is debarred from claiming permanent absorption as Constable in the J&K Police. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 has frankly made a statement on 11.08.2009 before this Court that the petitioner is entitled to compensation and his statement was accordingly recorded. Mr. S.C.Gupta, learned AAG also admitted that the wages of SPO is Rs.3000/- per month. 6. Keeping in view the pleadings and statements made on behalf of respondents 4 to 6, the following facts are admitted:- That the petitioner came to be appointed as SPO and was deputed to perform his duties with 23 Rashtria Rifle and sustained injury due to negligence of one army personnel Rajesh Kumar who suddenly touched the trigger which was loaded and bullet came out, hit the chest of Rajesh Kumar and thereafter hit the petitioner who was on duty. SPOs are receiving Rs.3000/- wages monthly. Respondents 4 to 6 have also stated that the petitioner is not entitled for permanent absorption as Police Constable because of permanent disablement. Now the question is that to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? 7. As discussed hereinabove, all the facts are admitted. The petitioner stood deprived of his regular absorption because of permanent disablement which he sustained due to negligence of the employee of respondent no.3. It is also admitted that his case was processed for permanent absorption and other averments also not denied by the respondents. It is a fact that a SPO at that time was getting Rs.1500/- per month wages and now as on date a SPO gets Rs.3000/-but because of injury the petitioner stands deprived of the said income. It is not a case of the respondents that they have not re-questioned the service of the petitioner. It is a fact that a SPO at that time was getting Rs.1500/- per month wages and now as on date a SPO gets Rs.3000/-but because of injury the petitioner stands deprived of the said income. It is not a case of the respondents that they have not re-questioned the service of the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner opted for serving with 23 Rashtriya Rifles. 8. The petitioner has also sought the relief commanding the respondents 4 to 6 to permanently appoint him as Constable. The said relief cannot be granted by this court for the simple reason that to appoint a police constable, he must be having requisite eligibility, which according to the petitioner he is lacking because of injury he has sustained due to negligence of army personnel Rajesh Kumar. 9. In the given circumstances, it is vicarious liability of Union of India (respondents 1 to 3) and State (respondents 4 to 6). The age of the petitioner was 29 years in 2003 and 31 years in 2005. For assessing compensation, I deem it proper to get clue from the schedule attached with the Motor Vehicles Act. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner at the relevant point of time, multiplier applicable as per schedule is 17. But the amount of multiplicand is at the higher side, so deem it proper to apply multiplier of 14 instead of 17. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was earning Rs.1500/-per month and now as on date SPO is getting Rs.3000/- per month, therefore, he is deprived of said income and of right of permanent absorption, thus the petitioner has lost income of Rs.3000/- per month. 11. It is also a fact that the petitioner also suffered from mental agony and pain and has to be compensated by awarding compensation under the head `pain and suffering. Keeping in view the averments contained in the writ petition and the documents on the file, I deem it proper to award Rs.1 .00 lacs under the head of pain and suffering. It is not contended by the petitioner that he was and is in dire need of attendant, thus the relief under the head of attendant is declined. 12. The respondents have not denied the plea that the petitioner has become impotent thereby he is deprived of sexual enjoyment, cohabitation. It is not contended by the petitioner that he was and is in dire need of attendant, thus the relief under the head of attendant is declined. 12. The respondents have not denied the plea that the petitioner has become impotent thereby he is deprived of sexual enjoyment, cohabitation. It has taken away from his matrimonial life which is too painful, so I deem it proper to grant Rs.1.00 lac under the head of loss of matrimonial life. Thus, in total the petitioner is entitled for compensation as under :- (i) Loss of earnings /income : Rs. 5,04,000/- (ii) Pain, suffering and treatment : Rs. 1,00,000/- (iii) Loss of matrimonial life : Rs. 1,00,000/- Total: Rs. 7,04,000/- 13. The petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 6% p.a, from the date of filing of the writ petition till its realization. Respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 are saddle with the liability in equal share and are commanded to satisfy the amount of compensation within three months from the date copy of the judgment and order is served upon them or received by them whichever is earlier. Registry to send copies of this judgment and order to respondents 2 to 5. Disposed of along with connected CMP(s).