JUDGMENT : HASNAIN MASSODI, J. 1. Facts are not in dispute. Abdul Rashid Reshi, S/o. Gh. Mohd. Reshi, R/o. Samboora, Pulwama, husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, was on 05.08.2010, hit by a bullet, when Railway Protection Force under the orders of Sh. M. Govind Raju, Assistant Commandant 9th Bn. opened fire to disperse a mob at Samboora, District Pulwama. Victim, a Coppersmith by profession, was at the time of unfortunate occurrence, pulling down shutter of his shop. He was immediately shifted to SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar in an injured condition, where he remained as indoor patient for a few months. The firearm injury damaged his brain and injury lead to complications like nervous breakdown, nephrological disorder and bed sores. He became crippled and reduced to vegetative state. The injured after prolonged hospitalization succumbed to his injuries on 11.06.2011, only after his medical treatment consumed all his assets, leaving his widow and young children high and dry. Petitioner was 36 years of age at the time of his death earned his livelihood by working as a coppersmith and had an income of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The untimely death of only bread winner of the family has left the petitioners without any source of livelihood. 2. Respondents do not dispute firing incident. It is also not disputed that fire was opened by a contingent of Railway Protection Force headed by Shri M. Govind Raju and one of the bullet fired, hit the deceased in his head. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 however, seek to explain the incident by stating that the Railway Protection Force while travelling in Tata Sumo No. PB05M-1140 towards Railway Station, Kakapora, was at 18.15 hrs attacked by an unruly mob near Forest Check post Samboora; that the mob pelted stones on the vehicle and even tried to set it on fire; that the Head Constable Girver Singh, Ct. Surjit Singh, Ct. Rajinder Prasad and Ct. Radhey Shyam and Driver Surjit Singh sustained injuries in the occurrence and the vehicle was also damaged; that Sh. M. Govind Raju, Assistant Commandant 9th Bn. Railway Protection Force ordered the Railway Protection Force personnel to open fire with a view to disperse the unruly mob. Surjit Singh, Ct. Rajinder Prasad and Ct. Radhey Shyam and Driver Surjit Singh sustained injuries in the occurrence and the vehicle was also damaged; that Sh. M. Govind Raju, Assistant Commandant 9th Bn. Railway Protection Force ordered the Railway Protection Force personnel to open fire with a view to disperse the unruly mob. It is admitted that the occurrence lead to registration of FIR No. 146/2010 under Section 307/332/148/149341/336/427 RPC dated 05.08.2010 at Police Station, Pampore, as the Police Station at Kakapora was set ablaze in 2010. 3. Respondents 4 to 6, however, admit that the victim aged 36 years a coppersmith by profession received bullet injury in the firing incident involving Railway Protection Force; that he though admitted in Hospital and given medical treatment, finally succumbed to injuries. 4. Petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit reiterate that the Victim-husband of Petitioner No. 1 was on 05.08.2010 critically injured in a firing incident involving Railway Protection Force at Samboora and latter succumbed to injuries on 11.06.2011. Petitioners insist that they had a right to invoke writ jurisdiction of court to seek compensation from respondents. It is insisted that the deceased a coppersmith by profession, was closing his shop when he received bullet injury and was not involved in any subversive activity. It is pleaded that respondents are under constitutional obligation to compensate the petitioners for the irreparable loss they have suffered. 5. I have gone through the pleadings as also the record available on file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The firing incident that claimed life of the petitioner is not disputed by the parties. An attempt is made by Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 to explain the circumstances in which the Railway Protection Force personnel were forced to open fire. Their case is that the officer accompanying the personnel directed them to open fire to disperse an unruly mob that was adamant to harm the life of Railway Protection Force personnel and set on fire the vehicle in which they were travelling. It is insisted that the deceased was not targeted by the personnel while opening fire to disperse the mob. It is insisted that the deceased was not targeted by the personnel while opening fire to disperse the mob. The explanation offered, may exonerate the personnel who opened fire, from any criminal liability or departmental action but is not to disentitle the petitioners from compensation due to them on account of untimely and tragic death of their only bread winner as also compensation on account of medical expenses incurred on his treatment at SKIMS Soura, Srinagar and at home after his discharge. 7. It is well settled law that right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to be compensated when such right is violated by the State or its functionaries/officers/officials. Reference in this regard may be made to Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086 . In "Pratap Kumar Naik v. State of Orissa AIR 2011 page Ori 179, it has been held that even delay and latches in filing a claim for compensation is not to be used as a ground to reject such claim. In such case, petitioner approaching court for protection of life and liberty, is not even required to file separate proceedings and compensation for violation of right to life and liberty may be claimed in the same petition. 8. Petitioners, in view of the admission on the part of respondents that the deceased met his untimely death because of the bullet injury at the hands of Railway Protection Personnel, are entitled to compensation due to them. The question that would arise is as to how to assess the compensation due to petitioners. It is settled law that in such matters court may seek guidance from principles governing assessment of compensation in MACT cases or fatal accidents. Base line is that amount assessed must represent just compensation and not excuse for undue enrichment. 9. The victim was 36 years of age at the time of his untimely death. He was coppersmith by profession and had a shop at Samboora, District Pulwama. The deceased as per petitioners' claim, was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from his business. Even if, income of deceased as claimed by petitioners is taken to be exaggerated or is projected at higher side, yet in the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. He was coppersmith by profession and had a shop at Samboora, District Pulwama. The deceased as per petitioners' claim, was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from his business. Even if, income of deceased as claimed by petitioners is taken to be exaggerated or is projected at higher side, yet in the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 10,500/- would reasonably be taken as the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his demise. He had a family comprising of four persons including himself to fend for. The deceased, is to be taken to have been spending 1/3rd of his income on his personal expenses. His net income therefore, was Rs. 7000/- per month and annual income Rs. 84000/-. Having regard to his age at the time of his death, the victim would have contributed Rs. 7000/- per month to his family kitty for at least next 15 years. When annual income is multiplied by multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to be Rs. 12,60,000/- together the amount to be awarded on account of his medical treatment. 10. Perusal of record would reveal that immediately after the firing incident and hospitalization of deceased, petitioners filed a writ petition being OWP No. 480/11. They sought a direction to respondents to provide medical assistance for treatment of the victim. On 24.05.2011, Director SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar was asked to constitute a team of Doctors to examine the deceased so as to assess the expenditure incurred and amount required to be spent on his medical treatment and medical procedure required for his effective treatment. 11. Director SKIMS, Soura, in compliance of the order dated 24.05.2011 vide Order No. SKIMS 100 of 2011, dated 24.05.2011 constituted a committee of four doctors headed by Dr. Nissar Ahmed Chowdri, Professor, SKIMS. The team examined the deceased and opined as under:- "01. The patient (injured) came to be examined in the Department of Nephrology on 25.05.2011; 02. The patient, was examined and discussed with the consultants and his previous medical record was also examined; 03. The patient, initially was admitted in the same department on 5.8.2010 as a case of firearm injury to his brain because of which he had sustained a grievous injury which crippled him and subjected him to vegetative state; 04. The patient, had a very long admission from 5.8.2010 to 25.12.2010 and needed subsequent admission to deal with complications; 05. The patient, initially was admitted in the same department on 5.8.2010 as a case of firearm injury to his brain because of which he had sustained a grievous injury which crippled him and subjected him to vegetative state; 04. The patient, had a very long admission from 5.8.2010 to 25.12.2010 and needed subsequent admission to deal with complications; 05. The patient, presently is in persistent vegetative state on tracheotomy with septicaemia and renal failure; 06. The patient, had to spend approximately Rs. 4.00 lakhs on his treatment since he sustained the firearm brain injury. 07. The patient, requires nursing case, physiotherapy and care of bed sores, in addition, the patient needs to be managed by the Department of Plastic Surgery for bed sores and the Department of Nephrology for kidney failure; The doctors opined that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month would be required for his treatment. 12. The petitioner, therefore, in view of the report deserve to be awarded an amount of Rs. 05 lacs on account of expenses incurred on treatment of deceased, transport and allied expenses. The compensation, therefore, due to petitioners on account of medical expenses is assessed at Rs. 5 lacs. 13. The argument that Respondents 9 & 10 cannot be saddled with the responsibility to pay compensation to the petitioners and the liability, if any, is that of Respondent No. 1, is without merit. The State is burdened with the duty to pay compensation to victim of violation of right to life and personal liberty at the hands of Security Forces, for the reason that security forces are associated with law and order duty at the request of State. In such a case, State is held liable to pay compensation as the security forces while acting on behalf of the State cause loss to life and property. In the present case, facts are markedly different and distinguishable. Here, the Railway Protection Force Personnel at the time of occurrence were not acting on behalf of the State nor were engaged in any law and order duty. The liability to pay compensation, therefore, squarely, falls on Respondents 9 and 10. 14. In the circumstances and the reasons discussed petition is allowed and Respondents 9 and 10 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 12,60,000/- as compensation to petitioners on account of death of husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioners Nos. The liability to pay compensation, therefore, squarely, falls on Respondents 9 and 10. 14. In the circumstances and the reasons discussed petition is allowed and Respondents 9 and 10 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 12,60,000/- as compensation to petitioners on account of death of husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 in firing incident involving Railway Protection Force and further an amount of Rs. 05 lacs on account of medical treatment to the deceased in hospital and thereafter at home. Petitioners 2 & 3 are school going children of tender age. They have been deprived of love and affection of their father when they needed it most. Respondents 9 & 10 alive to the plight of petitioners shall deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 17,60,000/- with Registry within four weeks, whereafter the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till it is so deposited. In the event, it is so deposited an amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- shall be released in favour of Petitioner No. 1 and the remaining of Rs. 12,00,000/- deposited under FDR in the name of Petitioners 2 & 3 in equal shares to be released to them on their attaining majority. Petitioner No. 1 would be free to lay a motion for release of the amount or interest accrued thereon, at an earlier date, if welfare and interest of Petitioners 2 & 3, so warrants. Disposed of.