Compensations in Special Circumstances

Ashwani Gupta vs. Government of Indian and Ors

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Appellant: Ashwani Gupta
Respondent: Government of Indian and Ors.
Citation: 2005 II AD (Delhi) 391
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Ashwani Gupta suffered grievous injuries as a result of a bomb blast and filed this petition seeking compensation.

Facts

Ashwani Gupta, aged 19 participated in the Maharaja Agrasen Jayanti procession held in Sadar bazaar, Delhi on 1st October 1997. A bomb blast occurred in that area and as a result, Ashwani lost his right leg from below the knee, both hands and sustained injury to both his eyes. He was diagnosed as having 90% disability of a permanent nature in a certificate issued by the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi.

Ashwani’s claim was based on a fundamental plea of the failure of the State to protect his life and limbs. He thus sought compensation of Rs. 5 lakh, provisions of suitable service and artificial limbs and a residential home of a status where he could live an independent and honorable life.

The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union of India expressed their sympathy for Ashwani. He was given a compensation of Rs. 25000/-. Both, the Government of Delhi and the UOI defended this amount as adequate. The Union of India took the stand that even thought the right to life was stated in the Constitution as absolute, there were situations beyond the control of the State in which unfortunate citizens became victims of violence perpetrated by fellow human beings.

It was also stated that though the Government takes all necessary precautions to eliminate such violence in a civic society, the Government could not be held liable to compensate for the loss of life or injuries. It was also stated that the payment of Rs. 25,000 made to Ashwani was not intended as compensation but was given in order to ameliorate the miseries suffered by him. A plea of financial constraints was also raised and it was stated that usually a payment of Rs. 10,000 is made but in the present case, Rs. 25000/- had been paid.

The State Government and the Police stated that adequate precautions were taken on the day of the incident but still 30 persons were injured in the bomb blast. A FIR was registered and the accused were arrested, the case was pending in the Trial Court.

Ashwani did not come from an affluent background and was doing a part-time job when he suffered the injuries. At the time of the blast he was in 3rd year of B.Com. These injuries drastically affected his earning capacity and potential for a job. Even a matrimonial relationship was out of question for him. He also pleaded that on the 29th October 1997 a similar bomb blast had occurred at Karol Bagh and a payment of Rs. 1 lakh had been made available by the then Prime Minister.

In light of these circumstances Ashwani’s case was directed to be considered by the Cabinet Secretariat. Initially, the concerned Joint Secretary was of the view that in light of the fact that relief was being paid in higher amounts to other such victims in the Country, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi needs to consider suitable enhancement of the relief in Ashwani’s case. However, the Cabinet Secretary did not find much merit in this proposal and rejected it.

No other relief was provided to Ashwani. It was only in April 2004 that the artificial limbs were provided to Ashwani.

Despite the injuries suffered by Ashwani he completed his Graduation from Delhi University in Commerce. He further completed an ‘O’ level Computer Diploma.

On the issue of providing alternative employment to Ashwani, his case was initially considered within the parameters of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment but this was not accepted. In the proceedings held on 19th March 2004, it was held by the Court that Ashwani’s case should be considered under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act. A number of directions by the Court, resulted in a final direction that his application should be made to the Employment Exchange and his name should be included in the list of persons enrolled at the Special Employment Exchange in the category of ‘Physically Handicapped Persons’.

The Court also directed the Government of NCT to file an affidavit providing the details of reservation. Through this affidavit it was found that appointments were not being made even though the posts were there. It was also noted that even the seniority granted to Ashwani in a list of such persons would not have any meaning unless the posts were filled up.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the Court Ashwani should be appointed to a post identified for persons with locomotive disability and from the requisite category keeping in mind his professional qualifications. With respect to the issue of monetary compensation the Court raised the issue on whether the UOI and the Government of NCT could be held liable to pay the amount on account of any breach of their responsibility.

The Court referred to previous judgments of similar nature and pointed out that in a civic society, there is not only a punishment for the crime of the violation of laws of the society but also for compensation to the victims of the crime. According to the Court, it was no excuse that the Government was short of money. The previous decisions showed clearly that it was the responsibility of the Government to compensate Ashwani.

The Court then went on to determine the amount of compensation. The Court pointed out that as far as the issue of future income was concerned the direction of providing future employment to Ashwani had already been given and therefore the loss of income would only be for a short period of time. This was especially so since Ashwani was doing part-time work and had passed B.Com along with a computer course. For a period of about 7 years Ashwani had been incurring medical expenses rather than earning any income. The Court referred to previous similar judgments in order to compute the amount of compensation payable to Ashwani.

In light of this discussion a writ was issued directing the Government of India to pay compensation of Rs. 2, 60,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 1st January 1998 till the date of payment, less the amount of Rs. 25,000 already paid. To the extent the amount was paid, the interest on the amount would stop running from the date of payment of Rs. 25,000.

A writ was further issued directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to appoint Ashwani to one of the vacant posts reserved under the Act according to his qualifications within one month. Ashwani was also entitled to costs of Rs. 10,000/- jointly awarded against UOI and the Government of NCT of Delhi.

Sections Referred:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Cases Referred:

• Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors., 2003 (68) DRJ 128 (DB)
  
• Bhajan Kaur vs. Delhi Administration, 1996 III AD (DELHI) 333
  
• Bombay Pavemear Dweller’s case, AIR 1986 SC 180
  
• Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India: (1990) 1 SCC 613.
  
• D.K. Basu vs. State of W. B., (1997) 1 SCC 416
  
• Javed Abidi vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 512
  
• Kamla Devi (Smt.) vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2004 IV AD (Delhi) 557.
  
• Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors., JT 2001 (6) SC 431
  
• M.S. Grewal vs. Deep Chand Sood : (2001) 8 SCC 151.
  
• M.V. Elisabeth. vs. Harwan Investment and Trading (P) Ltd., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433
  
• Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 274
  
• Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa: (1993) 2 SCC 746.
  
• Punjab Istri Sabha & Ors vs. Surjit Singh Barnala, Chief Minister, Punjab & Anr., 1990 ACJ 1064.
  
• R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551
  
• Smt. Shyama Devi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 78 (1999) DLT 827
  
• State of Gujarat vs. High Court of Gujarat: (1998) 7 SCC 392.
  
• The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. vs. Mahadeva Shetty & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 4172.
  
• Ward vs. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563.