State of Punjab and Ors. v. Kuldip Singh

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
D. K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2007-06-21
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The Court held that the notification fixed the limit of special ex-gratia relief and that a higher amount cannot be claimed under the notification or under section 482 Cr.P.C. However, recognizing insufficient reimbursement of medical expenses, the Court fixed the ex-gratia quantum at Rs 20,000 and held that an additional Rs 17,000 must be paid towards medical expenses within two months, over and above the fixed ex-gratia. The reference to a final settlement of Rs 80,000 by the High Court was set aside to the extent inconsistent with this ruling. The petition disposed of accordingly; the final relief amounts to Rs 37,000 in addition to any ex-gratia already paid (Rs 20,000) for medical costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab and its functionaries

Respondents

Kuldip Singh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Gangandeep Sharma
• Ajay Pal

Counsels for Respondents

• Collin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
• Jyoti Mendiratta

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision concerns compensation and ex-gratia relief provided to a victim of terrorist action by security forces acting in civil power in Punjab. The respondent sustained injuries in July 1991, resulting in the amputation of his right forearm. He received a fixed ex-gratia grant under a State government notification dated January 18, 1991, and a medical expenses payment. About ten years later, he filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking additional compensation of Rs 3,00,000. The High Court directed the State to pay an additional Rs 80,000, treating it as a final settlement. The State contends that the ex-gratia relief amounts were fixed by the notification and cannot be increased; the respondent argues the relief is merely palliative and does not cap medical expenses, and that the court has power to award further compensation. The Supreme Court held that the notification fixed the limit and the claim under section 482 Cr.P.C. was misconceived. However, acknowledging that medical expenses were not adequately reimbursed, the Court fixed the ex-gratia quantum at Rs 20,000 and held that an additional Rs 17,000 should be paid toward medical expenses, within two months, over and above the fixed ex-gratia. The judgment partly allows the appeals, directing the State to pay the additional amount, while keeping the fixed ex-gratia in place.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the ex-gratia relief amount was fixed by the government notification and the High Court’s direction to pay Rs 80,000 as final settlement is unsustainable. It argues that there is no provision to award enhanced compensation beyond the fixed ex-gratia under the notification, and that the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is misconceived since the relief was not sought as compensation in a writ petition and the belated claim is inappropriate.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-victim contends that the ex-gratia relief is a merely palliative measure and does not preclude awarding compensation; medical expenses claimed are inadequately reimbursed in the fixed sum; belated claims are not fatal given the peculiar circumstances; and the court has power to ensure fair compensation for medical costs.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. # _v._ KULDIP SINGH JUNE 21, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;_ S. _482._ B _Notification-Special ex-gratia relief to victim of terrorist action by Security Forces-Relief and medical expenses granted to respondent-victimFiling of petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. demanding compensation-High Court_ C _directing the State to pay to petitioner a further amount of Rs. 80,0001-0n appeal, held, in terms of the notification, limited special ex-gratia relief being granted to victim of terrorist action by the Security Forces-Thus, victim cannot make any claim higher than the limit so fu:ed in terms of the notification-Besides claim of compensation u/s 482 is misconceived-Further,_ D · _the victim was also given employment by the State Government-However, medical expenses paid is low compared to normal expenses-Accordingly, the State Government is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 17,0001- towards medical expenses in addition to the sum already paid as ex-gratia in terms of the notification._ E Respondent was hurt during the ambush in terrorist chase on 7. 7.1993 when he was visiting a relative in the night The police started shooting several bullets hitting his right forearm which was blown off. He was taken to the hospital where the right arm below elbow was amputated. Thereafter he had to undergo another surgery as he had developed abscess. He was paid a special ex-gratia relief of Rs. 20,000/- in terms of the notification providing for ex- F gratia relief to the victim of terrorist action by the Security Forces acting in civil power and also a sum of Rs.3, 378/- as medical expenses. After about 10 years, he had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. demanding compensation of rupee 3 lacs. The High Court allowed the petition by awarding to the petitioner a further amount of Rs, 80,000/-. Hence the present appeal. G Appellant-State contended that since the amount paid was fixed in terms of the notification, the High Court 's direction for payment is clearly unsustainable. H 1137 \ ~· A ll38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R. Respondent-victim submitted that the amount was given as a purely palliative measure and, therefore, there was no restriction on the High Court's power to award compensation; and that the amount awarded for medical expenses is petty. ' Partly allowing the appeals, the Court B HELD: I. The notification dated 18.1.1991 issued by the State Government makes the position clear that it was paid as "special ex-gratia grant". The limit was also fixed. Therefore, the question of the responding making any claim in terms of the notification for a higher amount does not C arise. Additionally, the respondent was not claiming compensation in a writ petition but under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such a cliam is misconceived. Additionally, the claim was made IO years after the amount fixed by the Government had been paid to him. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has been-appointed as a Chowkidar in a government school. Therefore, strictly D speaking, in terms of the notification nothing further is to be paid to the respondent. But the medical expenses paid are certainly low compared to the normal expenses which appear to have been spent for the operations and treatment. Accordingly, the quantum at Rs. 20,000/- is fixed. The same is in addition to the fixed sum already paid by way of ex-gratia compensation under the notification. Though there was a belated claim, in view of the peculiar E circumstances of the case, the belated approach is not treated to be fatal. Accordingly, an additional sum of Rs. 17,000/- shall be paid by the State Government to the respondent within two months. (Para 71 (1140-D-GI _)_ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1295 of 2002. F From the Judgment & Order dated 10.05.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No. 25991-M of 200 I. Gangandeep Sharma and Ajay Pal for the Appellants . . G Collin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Jyoti Mendiratta for the Respondent. > The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. l. The State of Punjab and its functionaries question the correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the H Punjab and Harayna High Court. On a petition under Section 482 of the Code 1139 STATE OF PUNJABv. KULDIPSINGH [PASAYAT.J.) of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C. ').the High Court by the impugned order directed the appellant-State to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- over and above what was paid to him as ex-gratia payment. It was held that the same would be in final settlement of claim of the respondent. ## 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as fo'llows: B In July 199 l State of Punjab was in the grab of terrorism at its height. Respondent suffered bullet injuries and his hand above the foreann had to be amputated. On l 8. l .1991 the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Relief and Resettlement, Chandigarh, wrote to Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers (C) in the State regarding revised scales of relief for C the persons adversely affected as a result of terrorists action by security forces acting in civil power. ## 3. It was provided therein as follows: ... .. "The question of grant of special ex-gratia relief to those who sustain pennanent disability less than I 00% in terrorists violence/security D forces acting in aid of civil power was under active consideration of this Department and it has been decided that in the event of innocent civilian sustaining disability less than I 00% in terrorist violence by security forces acting in aid of civil power, he/she may be paid special ex-gratia grant at the following scales: E i. in the event of disability upto 25% Rs.5,000/- ii. in the event of disability from 25% to 50% Rs. I 0,000. In the event of disability above 50% and less than 100% Rs.20,000-." F 4. On 7.7.1991 during the ambush in terrorist chase the respondent was hurt. He was visiting a relative in the night. The police asked him to stop. According to the police forces he did not pay any heed to stop the vehicle. In any event, police started shooting, several bullets hit his right foreann which was immediately blown off and severed from upper ann. He was taken G to the hospital where the right ann below elbow was amputated. Thereafter also the respondent had to undergo another surgery at PGI, Chandigarh as he had developed abscess. He was paid Rs.20,000/- in tenns of the notification and a sum of Rs.3,378/- as medical expenses. After about 10 years, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed demanding compensation of rupees 3 lacs. The claim was resisted on several grounds including delayed approach and H 1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R. A the non-applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court passed the following order: Reply filed, the same is taken on record. The State of Punjab will pay to the petitioner a further amount of B Rs.80,000/- within a period of three months. This will be final settlement of the claim of the petitioner .. The petition is disposed of accordingly." 5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State and its C functionaries submitted that the amount paid was fixed in terms of the notification and, therefore, the High Court's direction for payment is clearly unsustainable. •' 6. hi response, teamed counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount was given as a purely palliative measure and, therefore, there was no . D restriction on the High Court's power to award compensation. It was also submitted that the amount awarded for medical expenses is petty. 7. A bare look at the notification dated 18.1.1991 makes the position clear that it was paid as "special ex-gratia grant". The limit was also fixed. Therefore, the question of the respondent making any claim in terms of the E notification for a higher amount does not arise. Additionally, the respondent was not claiming compensation in a writ petition but under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such a claim is also misconceived. Additionally, the claim was made 10 years after the amount fixed by the Government had been paid to him. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has been appointed as a Chowkldar F in a government school. Therefore, strictly speaking, in terms of the notification nothing further is to be paid to the respondent. But we find that medical expenses paid are certainly low compared to the normal expenses which appear to have been spent for the operations and treatment. We fix the quantum at Rs.20,000/-. The same is in addition to the fixed sum already paid by way of ex-gratia compensation under the notification. Though there was G a belated claim, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case we have not treated the belated approach to be fatal. An additional sum ofRs.17,000/- shall be paid to the respondent within two months. The appeal is allowed to the. aforesaid extent. S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed. H