JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. L.P. Appeal No. 10/2016 is filed by the Director General, Railway special protection force and general manager Northern Railways, challenging the order made in OWP No. 480/2011 dated 07.12.2015, ordering compensation of an amount of Rs. 17,60,000/- with 9% interest per annum till the amount is deposited, to the writ petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ab. Rashid Reshi, who was hit by a bullet on 05.08.2010 and died on 11.06.2011. L.P. Appeal No. 11/2016 is filed by the writ petitioners against the very same order of the writ court for enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs. 40 Lacs and to make proper arrangements of education of the daughter and son of the deceased with a further direction to investigate the matter and prosecute the persons responsible for the death of the deceased. The parties are being referred as per their position in the writ petition. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The husband of writ petitioner No. 1, who is the 1st respondent in LPA No. 10/2016 and 1st appellant in LPA No. 11/2016 and the father of other writ petitioners was a Coppersmith by profession at Samboora District Pulwama. On 05.08.2010 he was fired upon by the 183 Bn CRPF stationed at Railway Station Kakapora. He was hit on the head while he was closing his shop and was rushed to hospital and was admitted on the same day and later on discharged from Hospital on 25.12.2010 without recovery i.e. in Coma stage. An FIR was registered bearing FIR No. 146/2010 under Sections 307, 332, 148, 149, 341, 336 and 427, RPC on the file of Police Station Pampore. Though investigation was to be conducted but there was no progress. The deceased person being the sole bread winner of the family was in Coma stage. The writ petitioners approached the Writ Court for compensation. The Superintendent of Police, Awantipora on 04.01.2011 certified that the injured was never involved in any illegal activities. On the ground that the sole bread winner was made to suffer in Coma stage, writ petition was filed when the injured was alive, praying to provide the medical treatment by specialist doctors to the husband of the 1st writ petitioner and father of writ petitioner Nos. On the ground that the sole bread winner was made to suffer in Coma stage, writ petition was filed when the injured was alive, praying to provide the medical treatment by specialist doctors to the husband of the 1st writ petitioner and father of writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and for taking him outside the State of J&K for proper treatment on the State exchequer and to provide financial support to the victim family in the form of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40 lacs and make arrangements for proper education of writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and to keep a job reserved in some Government Department for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and meanwhile to provide them monthly pension for sustenance with dignity with a further direction to complete the investigation into the matter and prosecute the offenders/culprits. The said writ petition was filed mainly on the ground that Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated and a person who was at peak age of earning as a Coppersmith, was made to suffer at the hands of the respondents. 3. The said writ petition was resisted by the respondents contending that the writ petition is not maintainable as the facts are in dispute. The writ petitioners have not lodged any FIR against the answering respondents of the alleged incident and the complaint itself was lodged by the Assistant Commandant of 9th Bn. The FIR was registered against the unruly mob at Police Station Pampore and the investigation has not been completed, therefore, no liability can be fixed on the respondents. It was further stated in the objections that as per the order of the Railway Board, the "C" Company of 9th Bn, Railway Protection Special Force, Jagadhari Workshop (Haryana) based at Udhampur was ordered to move Qazigund (Kashmir Valley) as per the request of senior Commandant, RPF, Tulsibagh for deployment of RPSF unit in view of grave law and order problem in the Valley causing widespread damage to Railway properties. The Company moved from Udhampur on 05.08.2010 at 09.30 hours consisting of 98 staff for reporting to Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway protection Force, Tulsibagh Srinagar for further deployment by two trucks bearing Nos. JK02H-1855 and JK02H-4145, two buses No. JK05-3785 and JK03-7477 and one Tata sumo No. PB05M-1140 to Kashmir valley along with BSF convoy. The Company moved from Udhampur on 05.08.2010 at 09.30 hours consisting of 98 staff for reporting to Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway protection Force, Tulsibagh Srinagar for further deployment by two trucks bearing Nos. JK02H-1855 and JK02H-4145, two buses No. JK05-3785 and JK03-7477 and one Tata sumo No. PB05M-1140 to Kashmir valley along with BSF convoy. On Galandhar turn the BSF convoy proceeded to Srinagar and the Company left for Kakapora Railway Station as per directions of Senior DSC/RPF/Tulsibagh. On reaching near Forest Check post Samboora at about 18.15 hours the road was blocked and suddenly about three to four hundred unruly mob came on spot and surrounded the vehicles and in spite of the persuasions by the Assistant Commandant and Inspector the unruly mob did not allow the company to proceed to go Kakapora and started pelting stones on the vehicles. They also tried to snatch the weapons from the Assistant Commandant and Inspector. Due to pelting of stones on the vehicles, four staff members and one driver sustained injuries and the vehicles also got damaged. The Assistant Commandant ordered to open fire in the air with a view to disperse the unruly mob and save the lives and property and managed to escape from Samboora to Kakapora Railway Station. A written complaint was lodged by the Assistant Commandant of 9 Bn at Police Station Pampore on the basis of which FIR No. 146/2010 was registered on 05.08.2010. The investigation was going on and as per intimation of the SHO Police Station Pampore dated 07.09.2011 nothing was established against the Railways. It is also stated that entire train operations were suspended by the administration and the Railway loss during such agitations was estimated to be in crores. The Northern Railway and Sr. Commandant, Tulsibagh set up different Court of enquiries to inquire into the incidents and reports were filed on 01.08.2010, 02.08.2011 and 07.08.2010. It is also stated in the objections that the Company of 9 Bn has not opened fire upon Abdul Rashid Reshi, which hit him on his head causing injuries. 4. The Northern Railway and Sr. Commandant, Tulsibagh set up different Court of enquiries to inquire into the incidents and reports were filed on 01.08.2010, 02.08.2011 and 07.08.2010. It is also stated in the objections that the Company of 9 Bn has not opened fire upon Abdul Rashid Reshi, which hit him on his head causing injuries. 4. The Writ Court, considering the narration of the facts and having regard to the admitted position that firing was ordered by the Assistant Commandant due to the incident as stated supra and having regard to the medical certificate produced by the writ petitioners regarding the treatment given to the injured person then, who died later on, and having regard to the report of the Superintendent of Police, Awantipora dated 09.01.2011 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama certifying noninvolvement of the injured in the unruly mob on 05.08.2010 and the fact that troops of RSPF who were going to Kakpora in their departmental vehicles opened fire in air in self defence out of which one of the bullet incidentally hit on the head of the injured, namely Abdul Rashid Reshi, awarded an amount of Rs. 17,60,000/- as compensation to the writ petitioners by applying the principles governing assessment of compensation in Motor Accident cases or fatal accidents. 5. In the appeal filed by the Director General, Railway Special Protection Force and the General Manager, Northern Railways the very same stand is taken which was taken before the Writ Court in the objections filed. In the appeal memo itself it is admitted that unfortunately one person, namely, Abdul Rashid Reshi S/o. Ghulam Mohammad Reshi R/o. Samboora Pulwama was hit by a bullet and he was immediately shifted to Medical College, Srinagar on 05.08.2010 and subsequently to SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar and he succumbed to injuries on 11.06.2011. 6. The main ground raised in this appeal is that after investigation 12 accused persons who were found guilty of the crime have been preceded by filing challan and the involvement of the Railway Protection Force is not in any way established. Hence, the liability thrust upon the appellants to pay compensation of Rs. 17,60,000/- is unsustainable. 6. The main ground raised in this appeal is that after investigation 12 accused persons who were found guilty of the crime have been preceded by filing challan and the involvement of the Railway Protection Force is not in any way established. Hence, the liability thrust upon the appellants to pay compensation of Rs. 17,60,000/- is unsustainable. It is also the contention of the appellants in LP appeal No. 10/2016 that the post-mortem report and the projectiles bullet removed from the body of the injured/deceased and the X-Ray and CT Scan films of the injured/deceased were not given to the appellants to ascertain the nature of the bullet used which hit the deceased in order to establish the ownership of weapon. Therefore, without any material the writ court has fixed the liability of the incident against the Railway Protection Force and awarded compensation. The further ground raised is that the Writ Court was not justified in applying the guidelines which are to be applied in Motor Accident Claims. 7. The learned counsel for the Railway Protection Force and the Railways vehemently argued that awarding compensation in the writ proceedings when facts are in dispute, is unsustainable and the order of the writ court is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants in LPA No. 11/2016, who are seeking enhancement of the compensation, on the other hand argued that the facts are not in dispute as the firing on the day i.e. 05.08.2010 by Railway Protection Force is admitted in the objections filed and the Superintendent of Police in his report to the Deputy Commissioner of Pulwama after verifying the facts has certified that the injury was sustained due to firing of Railway Protection Force on the head of the injured person and he was innocent and was never involved in any crime. Therefore, the facts are admitted and there are sufficient materials to substantiate the contention of the writ petitioners for claiming compensation and there is no illegality in adopting the guidelines followed for fixing compensation in Motor Accident Claims. It is further argued that compensation awarded by the Writ Court is too low when compared to the claim of Rs. 40.00 lacs. The learned counsel also argued that one of the family members of the deceased who died due to bullet injury, be given compassionate appointment. 9. It is further argued that compensation awarded by the Writ Court is too low when compared to the claim of Rs. 40.00 lacs. The learned counsel also argued that one of the family members of the deceased who died due to bullet injury, be given compassionate appointment. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. 10. The points arising for consideration are: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the writ court was justified in awarding the compensation in writ proceedings. (ii) Whether the writ court was justified in awarding compensation by applying the guidelines framed for fixing compensation in the Motor Accident Cases. (iii) Whether the compensation awarded i.e. Rs. 17,60,000/- is adequate, excessive or needs to be enhanced. (iv) Whether the writ petitioners are justified in seeking compassionate appointment in LPA No. 11/2016 to any one of the legal heirs of the deceased Ab. Rashid Reshi. 11. In the objections filed by the Senior Commandant, 9th Battalion, RPSF before the Writ Court, the fact of incident of firing on 05.08.2010 at 18.15 hours is admitted. An FIR was registered on the file of Police Station, Pampore bearing FIR No. 146/2010 u/S. 307, 148, 149, 336, 341 RPC is also admitted. The only contention raised by the Railway Protection Force is that they opened fire in air and the deceased was not hit by opening of fire by Railway Protection Force on 05.08.2010. It is not the case of the RPF that some other firing incident has taken place on the same day at the same time. The fact of bullet injury sustained by the deceased and his admission in the hospital due to head/brain injury and he was treated from 5.08.2010 are supported by discharge summary report issued by SKIMS, Srinagar dated 24.12.2010. Whether the injured (deceased) person was associated with the unruly mob at the very moment of firing was directed to be verified by the Superintendent of Police, Awantipora by the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama. After enquiry the Superintendent of Police submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama on 09.01.2011 which reads thus: "To The Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama Subject: Involvement/non-involvement certificate. Sir, Kindly find enclosed herewith copy of application of Abdul Rashid Reshi S/o. Gh. Mohd. Reshi R/o. Samboora received by this Office under your endorsement regarding the subject cited above. In this connection, report called from SDPO Awantipora reveals that one Ab. Sir, Kindly find enclosed herewith copy of application of Abdul Rashid Reshi S/o. Gh. Mohd. Reshi R/o. Samboora received by this Office under your endorsement regarding the subject cited above. In this connection, report called from SDPO Awantipora reveals that one Ab. Rashid Reshi S/o. Gh. Mohd. R/o. Samboora copper smith by profession on 05.08.2010 in the evening while closing the shop situated at Samboora sustained bullet injury in his head and is still under treatment at SKIMS Soura evacuated by NOKs there. The character and antecedents of the said individual are found satisfactory who is neither directly nor indirectly involved in any kind of subversive activity and there is nothing adverse against him as per the records of Police station Pampore so far. On the other hand on the fateful day i.e. 05.08.2010 some unknown miscreants, after blocking the Samboora road attacked the troops of RSPF, who were going to Kakapora in their departmental vehicles, who in self defence have fired some rounds in air out of which one of the bullet incidentally hit to the head of the above named individual, who was not associated with unruly mob at the very moment. However case FIR No. 146/2010 u/S. 307, 148, 149, 336, 341 RPC stands registered in P/S. Pampore and the case is under investigation." 12. On perusal of the above report of the Superintendent of Police, it is evident that due to the blocking of road and attack by miscreants on troops of RSPF, who were going to Kakapora in their vehicles on the evening of 05.08.2010, in their self defence they have fired some rounds out of which one bullet hit the brain of the injured, namely, Ab. Rashid Reshi, who was not associated with the unruly mob at the very moment or any time. The said report submitted by the Superintendent of Police cannot be brushed aside at least for purposes of awarding compensation to the legal heirs of the victim who sustained bullet injury and later on died. 13. It is well settled proposition of law that for awarding compensation strict liability need not to be proved like in criminal cases which may lead to convicting a person and where the benefit of doubt will have a major role to play. 13. It is well settled proposition of law that for awarding compensation strict liability need not to be proved like in criminal cases which may lead to convicting a person and where the benefit of doubt will have a major role to play. The said issue is settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 1504 ( Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand and Ors). In para Nos. 12 and 13 it is held thus: "12.................The High Court appears to be not cognizant of the principle that in a road accident claim, the strict principles of proof in a criminal case are not attracted. The following observations of this Court in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530 ]: ( AIR 2009 SC 2819 ) are very pertinent. "In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied." 13. This Court, therefore, is unable to sustain the judgment given by the High Court and quashes the same and restores that of the Tribunal." The Supreme Court or the High Court are entitled to render compensatory justice by awarding reasonable monetary compensation under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, for the injury mental, physical, fiscal suffered by the individual for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution under Public law remedy. It is not necessary that the victim should approach the Civil Court by invoking common law remedy for claiming damages for violation of the fundamental rights. The option is left to the victim to claim the damages by invoking either the constitutional remedy or civil remedy. Similarly the quantum of compensation varies from case to case depending upon the nature of loss suffered by the victim. There cannot be any strait-jacket formula for awarding the compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." In (2000) 2 SCC 465 : ( AIR 2000 SC 988 ), (The Chairman, Railway Board v. Mrs. Similarly the quantum of compensation varies from case to case depending upon the nature of loss suffered by the victim. There cannot be any strait-jacket formula for awarding the compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." In (2000) 2 SCC 465 : ( AIR 2000 SC 988 ), (The Chairman, Railway Board v. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Ors.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "11. Having regard to what has been stated above, the contention that Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon should have approached the civil court for damages and the matter should not have been considered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. Where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available under the Public Law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under Private Law." In the decision reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3660 ), (M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the question whether the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by the parents of 14 children, who died due to drowning in a river when they were on picnic organized by the school authorities. While rejecting the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court referred to the decisions reported in (1983) 4 SCC 141 : ( AIR 1983 SC 1086 ) (Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar), (1993) 2 SCC 746 : ( AIR 1993 SC 1960 ) (Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa), and (1997) 1 SCC 416 : ( AIR 1997 SC 610 ) (D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal) and observed as under: "Next is the issue "maintainability of the writ petition" before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants though initially very strongly contended that while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal law already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil law and thus the civil court's jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants though initially very strongly contended that while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal law already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil law and thus the civil court's jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition though advanced at the initial stage of the submissions but subsequently the same was not pressed and as such we need not detain ourselves on that score, excepting however recording that the law courts exist for the society and they have an obligation to meet the social aspirations of citizens since law courts must also respond to the needs of the people................." On the question of quantum of damages, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations: "Be it placed on record that in assessing damages, all relevant materials should and ought always to be placed before the court so as to enable the court to come to a conclusion in the matter of affectation of pecuniary benefit by reason of the unfortunate death. Though mathematical nicety is not required but a rough and ready estimate can be had from the records claiming damages since award of damages cannot be had without any material evidence: whereas one party is to be compensated, the other party is to compensate and as such there must always be some materials available therefor. It is not a fanciful item of compensation but it is on legitimate expectation of loss of pecuniary benefits. In Grand Trunk Rly. Co. of Canada v. Jennings this well-accepted principle stands reiterated as below: "In assessing the damages, all circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the damages must be considered. It is not a mere guesswork neither is it the resultant effect of a compassionate attitude." As noticed above, a large number of decisions were placed before this Court as regards the quantum of compensation varying between 50,000 to one lakh in regard to the unfortunate deaths of the young children. We do deem it fit to record that while judicial precedents undoubtedly have some relevance as regards the principles of law, but the quantum of assessment stands dependent on the fact situation of the matter before the court, than judicial precedents. We do deem it fit to record that while judicial precedents undoubtedly have some relevance as regards the principles of law, but the quantum of assessment stands dependent on the fact situation of the matter before the court, than judicial precedents. As regards the quantum, no decision as such can be taken to be of binding precedent as such, since each case has to be dealt with on its own peculiar facts and thus compensation is also to be assessed on the basis thereof, though however, the same can act as a guide: placement in the society, financial status differs from person to person and as such assessment would also differ. The whole issue is to be judged on the basis of the fact situation of the matter concerned though however, not on mathematical nicety." 14. Thus it is manifest that once some clinching and probable evidence is available to show the involvement of the RSPF, in causing the injury to the person, the victim or legal heirs are bound to be compensated. Thus the first issue raised in this appeal is decided against the appellants in LP Appeal No. 10/2016 and held in favour of the respondents who are also appellants in L.P. Appeal No. 11/2016. 15. Insofar as the second issue as to whether the learned single Judge was justified in applying the guidelines for the award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is justified or not, it is an admitted fact that there is no codified law for arriving at the quantum of compensation in cases of this type i.e. to award compensation by Constitutional courts. The guidelines contained in the enactments like Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1948; and Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 may be applied for arriving at the just compensation. In the decision reported in (1969) 3 SCC 64 : ( AIR 1970 SC 376 ) (C.K. Subramanialyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair) Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that there is no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at precisely. In the decision reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3660 ) (M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that multiplier method may be adopted to arrive at the just compensation. In the decision reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3660 ) (M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that multiplier method may be adopted to arrive at the just compensation. The age of the deceased can also be taken for arriving at a correct multiplier as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (5) LW 408 : 2011 AIR SCW 1313) (P.S. Somanathan & others v. District Insurance Officer & another). How the Court should decide the cases of this nature is emphasized by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2011) 10 SCC 634 : ( AIR 2012 SC 534 , Para 10) (Ibrahim v. Raju). In paragraph 9 it is held thus, "9. This Court has time and again emphasized that the officers, who preside over the Tribunals adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure keeping in view the relevant factors. Unfortunately, despite repeated pronouncements of this Court in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of road accidents and/or their families, the Tribunals and even the High Courts do not pay serious attention to the imperative of awarding just compensation to the claimants." In the decision reported in (2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009 AIR SCW 6999, Paras 20 and 21) (Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan) Hon'ble the Supreme Court pointed out the need of giving just compensation to the victim. In paragraphs 26 and 27 it is held thus: "26. The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. 27. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. 27. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so." 16. This Court is bound to bear-in-mind the above stated principles for arriving at just compensation. Thus the issue of awarding compensation by applying the guidelines to be followed while determining compensation in Motor Accident claims is well settled and the learned single Judge has rightly followed the said guidelines for determining the compensation. The said issue is also answered against the appellants in L.P. Appeal No. 10/2016 and in favour of the respondents who are also appellants in L.P. Appeal No. 11/2016. 17. Regarding the quantum of compensation awarded, it is not in dispute that Ab. Rashid Reshi, who got injury on his head/brain, later on died due to firing incident on 05.08.2010 was 36 years old and he was a Coppersmith by profession and had a shop at Samboora District Pulwama which is duly reported by Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama as stated supra. At that time, according to the writ petitioners, his monthly earnings was Rs. 20,000/- and there was every possibility of earning more income in future years, still the learned single Judge, has fixed the monthly earnings at Rs. 10,500/- which cannot be treated in any manner on higher side. The family having been comprised of four members including the deceased, the learned single Judge has reduced ?rd of his income for his personal expenses and fixed an amount of Rs. 7000/- as monthly income to the family and considering his age as 36 years, multiplier of 15 has rightly been adopted and thereby Rs. 12,60,000/- has been awarded. The family having been comprised of four members including the deceased, the learned single Judge has reduced ?rd of his income for his personal expenses and fixed an amount of Rs. 7000/- as monthly income to the family and considering his age as 36 years, multiplier of 15 has rightly been adopted and thereby Rs. 12,60,000/- has been awarded. The learned single Judge also took note of the directions issued by the Writ Court in OWP No. 480/2011 dated 24.05.2011 and the report of the SKIMS, Srinagar which is extracted in paragraph 12 of the order of the Writ Court, which reads thus: "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, 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 care, 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." 18. The learned single Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of expenses incurred on treatment of deceased, nursing care, transport and allied expenses. Insofar as the award of Rs. 5 lacs apart from the loss of income, the learned single Judge is justified in awarding the same considering the fact that said amount has been quantified not only for treatment but also for allied expenses i.e. nourishment, expenses of the persons attending the injured person so long as he was in the bed, consortium to the 1st writ petitioner, loss of love and affection to all the writ petitioners, funeral expenses etc. In any event the said amount though could have been assessed on different heads, the learned single Judge has quantified at Rs. 5 lacs in lump sum which is not higher at all. Thus a total sum of Rs. 17,60,000/- was awarded with 9% interest per annum till it is deposited with further order that an amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- shall be released in favour of the petitioner No. 1-widow and remaining Rs. 12,00,000/- deposited under FDR in the name of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in equal shares to be released to them on their attaining majority and the 1st writ petitioner, namely, the mother of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was permitted to get interest accrued thereon. The said amount awarded is reasonable and not on higher side considering the nature of avocation which the deceased was doing at the age of 36 years. 19. As no proof regarding the income of the injured/deceased was filed by the writ petitioners to arrive at a decision with regard to the income of more than Rs. 10,500/- per month, the compensation awarded is just. Hence the amount is not required to be enhanced as claimed by the appellants in L.P. Appeal No. 11.2016. 20. Insofar as the issue, i.e. claim of the writ petitioners that one of the legal heirs of the deceased be given compassionate appointment, admittedly the writ petitioners have not approached the Deputy Commissioner Pulwama with an application seeking compassionate appointment. Hence this Court cannot directly order compassionate appointment without even a claim made before the competent authority. Hence liberty is granted to the writ petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner Pulwama, seeking compassionate appointment to any one of the legal heirs and if any such application is filed the same is bound to be considered in accordance with law governing the appointment to be made on compassionate grounds. 21. In fine the order of the Writ Court is affirmed and both the L.P. appeals are dismissed. 22. The appellants in L.P. Appeal No. 10/2016 are directed to comply with the order of the Writ Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 23. No costs.