Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 637 (GAU)

Mustt. Achuran Begum v. State of Assam

2011-07-29

AMITAVA ROY, C.R.SARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT and ORDER Amitava Roy, J. 1. The present appeals are arising out of the common judgment and order, dated 27.10.2009, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C) Nos. 5956/2006 and 3254/2008. The writ petitioners, in the aforesaid writ petitions, being aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation, awarded by the learned single Judge, has come up with these appeals on the ground of inadequacy of the compensation. As both the writ appeals, arising out of the common judgment and order, are based on almost identical facts, involving similar questions of law and are represented by the same set of lawyers, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the learned counsels, we have heard these appeals together and propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. 2. We have heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents. 3. The facts involved in the said writ petitions, may, in brief, be stated as follows: 4. The writ petitioners (in WP(C) No. 5956 of 2006 and in WP(C) No. 3254 of 2008), being Ration Card holders, purchased S.K. Oil from the fair price shops. The said kerosene, S.K. Oil was supplied by M/S. Agarwal Auto Agencies, i.e. the respondent No. 9, an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing) Division, Guwahati, i.e. the respondent No. 8 to the respondent No. 10 (Md. Anwar Hussain) in WP(C) 5956/2006 and Sri Binod Nath, i.e. the respondent No. 10 in WP(C) No. 3254/2008, who being the proprietors of the concerned fair price shops, dealt with the distribution of kerosene oil, under the scheme of Supply of Essential Commodities, sponsored by the Government of Assam. 5. On 25.12.2004, in the evening, when the daughter of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 5956/2006, namely, Miss Rizuma Begum, a student of Class-X started lighting a hurricane Lamp, by pouring kerosene Oil into it, the hurricane lamp got blasted, as a result of which, the said daughter of the writ petitioner aforesaid sustained severe burn injuries on her person. Though the injured was taken to the hospital for medical treatment, she succumbed to her injuries on 05.01.2005. Though the injured was taken to the hospital for medical treatment, she succumbed to her injuries on 05.01.2005. The petitioner, apart from lodging an F.I.R with the Police, on 02.05.2006, filed an application before the SDO (Civil) through the Circle Officer, seeking financial help due to the said accidental death of her daughter aforesaid. 6. According to the writ petitioner, her daughter, aforesaid, was a brilliant student having future prospect and that she sustained financial expenditure amounting to Rs. 30,000/-towards the medical treatment on her said daughter. The State Government extended an ex gratia grant of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in favour of the petitioner, on account of the said accidental death of her daughter. Being aggrieved by the said meagre amount of compensation, the mother of the deceased, as writ petitioner, filed the writ petition, involving writ jurisdiction of the Court and seeking a direction for payment of compensation Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only. 7. In WP(C) No. 3254/2008, the petitioner's wife Smt. Saira Begum (in WP(C) No. 3254 of 2008), while lightening a wick, on 30.06.2005, after filling the same with the Kerosene oil, purchased by him from the fair price shop of the respondent No. 10, the wick got blasted, causing burn injury to his wife and damage to his property. Though the said wife of the petitioner was shifted to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, for medical treatment, she succumbed to her injuries, on 07.07.2005. 8. According to the petitioner, beside lodging a FIR with the Police, he approached the SDO (Civil), Rangia, on 03.06.2006, seeking compensation towards the death of his wife due to the said accident, caused by the use of kerosene oil, purchased from the fair price shop. The State respondent granted ex gratia compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only. 9. According to the writ petitioners, accidents leading to the death of the said deceased persons took place due to supply of adulterated kerosene oil through the fair price shop and for this they suffered irreparable loss and injury by losing the members of their families, for no fault on their part. Dissatisfied with the meagre amount of compensation, granted by the said authority, the writ petitioners, by filing the said writ petitions separately, prayed for order(s) requiring the State Government to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) only each in favour of the petitioners. Dissatisfied with the meagre amount of compensation, granted by the said authority, the writ petitioners, by filing the said writ petitions separately, prayed for order(s) requiring the State Government to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) only each in favour of the petitioners. 10. The learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, aforesaid, enhanced the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, granted by the State, to Rs. 50,000/- in favour of each of the writ petitioners. 11. The writ petitioners being dissatisfied with the grant of compensation aforesaid have come up with these appeals. Mr. Roshid, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the daughter of the appellant, in W.A. No. 138 of 2011, was a brilliant student of Class-X, having better future prospect, and that her death, in the said incident was a great loss causing a void to the life of the appellant Therefore, it is contended that the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was not sufficient to adequately compensate the appellant for the said loss. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant in W.A. No. 29 of 2008 (arising out of WP(C) No. 3254/2008), has lost his 32 years old young wife in connection with accident caused by the use of S.K. oil, supplied from the fair price shop and that the said death caused irreparable loss and injury and a great set back of the life of the appellant. Therefore, it is submitted that compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, as awarded by the learned single Judge, was not at all adequate and sufficient In support of his contention, the learned counsel has also referred to a notification, dated 24.04.2007, by which, compensation for accidential death has been enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- w.e.f. the said date. The learned counsel, in support of the contention, has also relied on the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak & Ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 15. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and examining the materials before us, we are of the considered opinion that the short question involved in this case, is whether the compensation awarded by the learned single Judge was adequate and if not, what should be the reasonable compensation, to be awarded in favour of the appellants. 13. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and examining the materials before us, we are of the considered opinion that the short question involved in this case, is whether the compensation awarded by the learned single Judge was adequate and if not, what should be the reasonable compensation, to be awarded in favour of the appellants. 13. The single Judge, while fixing the ex gratia compensation at Rs. 50,000/- observed as follows: 7. Since the repeated incidents of bursting of S.K. Oil Lamps had taken place in a particular area, it was the duty of the police department and also the Civil authorities of the State to ascertain the cause of such incidents, However, as indicated above, even after intimating the incident to the police station, the F.I.Rs were buried under the carpet and no attempt was made to come to a Logical conclusion. Because of this negligency, the petitioners may not be in a position to get adequate compensation either from the manufacturers of the defective kerosene lamps or from the I.O.C., if the S.K. Oil was in fact adulterated one. 8. In my considered opinion, it is the duty of the State to protect the lives of its citizens. However, in the present case, it appears that the State authorities had adopted an indifferent attitude. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, at least as a public law remedy. 14. The said judgment and order, containing the observation of the learned trial Judge, has not been challenged by the State authority, and as such, the decision regarding entitlement of compensation has attained its finality. 15. From the pleadings of the parties, as well as the unchallenged findings, rendered by the learned single Judge, we have no difficulty in understanding that the deceased persons died due to the accident, caused by the use of S.K. oil supplied through the fair price shop. The liability of the State Government to pay compensation has been determined by the learned single Judge and the same has not been controverted as unchallenged. 16. In the case of Ganapati Chaya Nayak & Ors. (supra) the deceased was a constable of CRPF and he was the earning member of the appellant's family. The liability of the State Government to pay compensation has been determined by the learned single Judge and the same has not been controverted as unchallenged. 16. In the case of Ganapati Chaya Nayak & Ors. (supra) the deceased was a constable of CRPF and he was the earning member of the appellant's family. The respondents contended that the death of the deceased was accidential one and the same was challenged by the appellants alleging that the said death was the result of brutal murder by fellow constables. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The High Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondents to pay 1,00,000/- with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant as his wife for the mental agony and the loss suffered by them. Being aggrieved by the order, passed by the High Court, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, by filing a special leave application and the Supreme Court while enhancing the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-to Rs. 2,00,000/- observed as follows: However, the death of son of the appellant is definitely not only a personal loss to the family but also financial. The deceased was a victim of an unfortunate incident and this has caused a heavy loss and mental agony to the family members of the deceased. The aforesaid findings recorded by the High Court have not been challenged by the respondents before us by filing any independent appeal. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh directed to be paid to the appellants towards compensation and damages is meagre. Therefore, we are to consider what would be an appropriate amount of compensation which is payable to the appellants. The Supreme Court in the above referred case at the time of enhancing the compensation that the deceased person, who was the son of the appellant, was only earning member of the family and that the earnings of the deceased were a source of sustenance for the family. 17. In the case at hand, there is nothing, on record, to show that the deceased persons were the earning members and that the writ petitioners-appellants were depended on their earnings. Therefore, the principle, on which the compensation was enhanced to double the amount, granted by the High Court, cannot be applicable in the present cases. 17. In the case at hand, there is nothing, on record, to show that the deceased persons were the earning members and that the writ petitioners-appellants were depended on their earnings. Therefore, the principle, on which the compensation was enhanced to double the amount, granted by the High Court, cannot be applicable in the present cases. However, there can be no dispute that the loss of such young persons caused void in the family life of the writ petitioners-appellants. Apart from suffering from mental agony and emotional pain, the appellants have certainly been deprived from the company, love and affection of the said deceased persons, who were very near and dear to them. 18. Therefore, though, apparently, there is no evidence of financial loss, the death of the deceased persons was personal loss to the writ petitioners-appellants and the members of their respective families. Admittedly, both the deceased persons were provided medical treatment by the writ petitioners-appellants, who tried their level best for the survival of the deceased persons. Therefore, apart form suffering mentally and emotionally, they also suffered financial loss towards medical treatment of the deceased persons. 19. Though, the loss created in the family of the writ petitioners due to death of such young persons cannot be filled up by any amount of money, there cannot be any denial that the appellants should be reasonably compensated. Admittedly, there is no standard ratio, fixed for computing the compensation of such loss. By the notification, dated 24.04.2007, issued by the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Relief and Rehabilitation Branch, the Government fixed the compensation for accidental death at Rs. 1,00,000/-. In the said notification is has been mentioned that the same would come into force w.e.f. 24.04.2007. By the said notification, the earlier notification, dated 22.09.1998 stood superseded. As revealed from the notification, dated 24.04.2007 aforesaid, the compensation payable for death prior to 24.04.2007 as per notification, dated 22.09.1998 was Rs. 10,000/-. Admittedly, the incidents, mentioned in both the writ petitions before us, took place prior to 24.04.2007. Therefore, the rate of compensation fixed by the notification of 2007 is not applicable to the present cases. The Government has also granted ex gratia compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to each of the appellants on the basis of the earlier notification. 20. Therefore, the rate of compensation fixed by the notification of 2007 is not applicable to the present cases. The Government has also granted ex gratia compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to each of the appellants on the basis of the earlier notification. 20. The learned single Judge while taking notice of the notification, dated 22.09.1998, which superseded by the notification, dated 24.04.2007, observed as follows: 10. It has been noticed that the aforesaid Notification is not scrupulously followed by the State in-as-much as higher amounts are being sanctioned by the Government in the case to the victims of bomb blasts, drowning, vehicular accidents etc. Even, otherwise the amount of ex gratia payment fixed in the year 1998 has become obsolete. With the above observations the learned single Judge enhanced the ex gratia compensation to Rs. 50,000/-, which has remained unchallenged. 21. Though the rate fixed by the 2007 notification is not strictly applicable in the cases at hand, considering the proportionality and the trend of increase of the compensation during the period of 9 years i.e. from 1998 to 2007 (the rate of 1998 has been increased by 10 times in 2007), we are of the considered view that, for ends of justice, the minimum compensation in 2004/2005 should be 6/7 times higher than the rate fixed in 1998. 22. In the light of the above discussion, considering the irreparable loss injury, the medical expenditure sustained by the appellants and the mental pain and agony caused by such accidental death, for no fault on their part, we are of the opinion that a higher amount of compensation, would met the ends of justice and bring some amount of solace to the appellants. 23. In view of the above discussion and the attending facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation. Accordingly, we direct that the State of Assam shall pay at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) to each of the appellants-writ petitioners, aforesaid, as compensation, instead of Rs. 50,000/-, as fixed by the learned single Judge. The said amount shall be paid within a period of three months from this date. The amount, already paid, shall be adjusted while complying with this order. 24. The appeals stands disposed of in terms of the order aforesaid. 25. No cost.