Supreme Court awards compensation of Rs.1.20 crore to a boy electrocuted due to negligence of Himachal Pradesh Government

Supreme Court awards compensation of Rs.1.20 crore to a boy electrocuted due to negligence of Himachal Pradesh Government

Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar, an 8 years old boy, on 18.03.2012 at about 3.30 p.m., accompanied his mother to the fields to collect “Saag” where he got electrocuted with a high tension live wire (11 KV) commonly known as Lahru-Chowari Line. He received grievous burn and other injuries and became unconscious. On the same day, FIR was registered at the instance of the mother of the respondent. He was taken to the hospital. Both arms were amputated. He suffered 100% disability. During the course of hospitalization, his family had to incur expenses exceeding Rs.2,00,000/- including medicines, taxi charges, attendant charges, special diet charges etc. He became totally dependent upon family members even for day-to-day activities for his entire life. He was throughout brilliant student in his studies and had to discontinue his studies after this unfortunate incident.

The boy, through his mother and natural guardian, namely, Smt. Lata Devi, filed writ petition being W.P. No. 475 of 2013 in the Himachal Pradesh High Court against the State Government claiming a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under various heads. He also prayed for a direction to the authorities to install and maintain all the electricity wires, conductors, apparatus etc. strictly in accordance with the Electricity Act, Rules, Regulations etc. so that no such untoward incident would take place in the future.

The High Court, by judgment dated 09.01.2015, allowed the writ petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- under different heads to the boy.

Against the said judgment, the State Government filed appeal in the Supreme Court, being

SLP (C) No.9471/2015 (later converted to Civil Appeal No.1339/2017) titled as ‘State of Himachal Pradesh vs Naval Kumar @ Rohit Kumar’.

The Supreme Court (Bench of Justices J.Chelameswar and A.m.Sapre) by its judgment dated 2nd February 2017 endorsed the view of the High Court that the incident in question occurred due to negligence of the State and its authorities and hence the State was vicariously liable to compensate the boy for the losses sustained by him; that having regard to the family background of the respondent and further respondent’s excellent performance as a brilliant student in studies, he would have easily earned Rs.30,000/- per month in his life. However, the Supreme Court rejected compensation under some heads as being excessive and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case such as the boy’s family background, his age (8 years), nature of permanent disability suffered by him, his performance in studies, the determination of monthly/yearly income made by the High Court, expenses incurred and all the relevant factors, which are usually taken into account in awarding compensation to the victim, granted a total lumpsum compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- (Rs. Ninety lacs) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the filing of the writ petition in High court (in place of Rs.1,25,00,000/- awarded by the High Court).

Supreme Court observed that “The award of Rs.90,00,000/- together with interest payable at the rate of 6% p.a., in our view, would fetch sufficient regular monthly income to the respondent by way of interest alone, if the awarded sum is deposited in the Bank and would thus take care of respondent’s upbringing and other needs for the rest of his life. The award of compensation determined by us is just and reasonable compensation payable to the respondent”.

Read the SupremeCourt Judgment

Regulation of Private Coaching Centres : PIL in Supreme Court closed

A PIL being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 456/2013 titled as ‘Students Federation of India vs Union of India’ was filed in the Supreme Court for regulating the private coaching centres which have mushroomed all over India. These centres are providing coaching for preparing students for various competitive exams, mainly for engineering and medical courses. These coaching institutes have become a big business. It was contended that due to these money spinning coaching institutes, the regular education has been relegated to secondary position as these institutes focus predominantly on preparation for entrance exam due to which students pay little attention to studies in school; the education was being commercialized and in absence of proper regulation, concerned students are being exploited as these institutes charge hefty amounts.

The Central Government replied that 40% weightage will be given to Class 12th Board Exams marks, based on normalised percentile scores, and the remaining 60% weightage be given to the performance in JEE (Main), thereby substantially reducing the dependence on coaching institutes.

In view of this, the Bench of Justice Adarsh Goel and Justice U.U.Lalit disposed off the petition on 3rd February 2017 asking the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities, this being a policy matter.

The Bench observed thus :

“We are of view that the issue raised in the petition, though important, is basically a policy matter. It will be open to the petitioners to raise the issue before the concerned authorities who may consider the same in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Read Supreme Court Order

-->

Supreme Court rejects prayer for enquiry into documents seized in CBI raids from premises of Birla and Sahara group of companies

The Petitioner, an NGO called Common Cause, through activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan filed a petition [IA No. 3 & 4 of 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505/2015] in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India praying for constitution of a SIT (Special Investigation Team) for investigation into the incriminating material seized in the raids conducted by CBI on the Birla and Sahara Group of Companies in October 2013 and November 2014 respectively. He further prayed that investigation by Special Investigation Team should not be only ordered, but it should be monitored by the Supreme Court.

The Petitioner argued that the allegations which are reflected by the materials collected indicates commission of cognizable offence.  He urged that it is the bounden duty of the Court to direct investigation and falsity or correctness of the documents has to be seen in course of the investigation.

On the other hand, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the Attorney General for the Government argued that the material in question with respect to Sahara Group on the basis of which investigation is sought for, have been found by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), in proceedings under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, to be doubtful;  the documents which have been filed by the Birla as well as Sahara Group are not in the form of account books maintained in regular course of business; they are random sheets and loose papers and their correctness and authenticity, even for the purpose of income mentioned therein have been found to be un-reliable having no evidentiary value, by the concerned authorities of income tax; The documents of Birla Group are also the same; they are not in the form of regular books of account and are random and stray materials and thus the case of Birla also stands on the same footing.

Placing reliance on the decision in C.B.I. versus V.C. Shukla 1998 (3) SCC 410, the AG further submitted that it is open to any unscrupulous person to make any entry any time against anybody’s name unilaterally on any sheet of paper or computer excel sheet; There being no further corroborative material with respect to the payment, no case is made out so as to direct an investigation, and that too against large number of persons named in the documents; Such entries have been held to be prima facie not even admissible in V.C. Shukla’s case. He urged that in case investigation is ordered on the basis of such documents, it would be very dangerous and no constitutional functionary/officer can function independently, as per the constitutional imperatives; No case is made out on the basis of material which is not cognizable in law, to direct investigation.

After discussing the earlier judgments on the subject, the Bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy by its Judgment dated 11^th January 2017 finally rejected the application in following words :

“27. Considering the aforesaid principles which have been laid down, we are of the opinion that the materials in question are not good enough to constitute offences to direct the registration of F.I.R. and investigation therein. The materials should qualify the test as per the aforesaid decision. The complaint should not be improbable and must show sufficient ground and commission of offence on the basis of which registration of a case can be ordered. The materials in question are not only irrelevant but are also legally inadmissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, more so with respect to third parties and considering the explanation which have been made by the Birla Group and Sahara Group, we are of the opinion that it would not be legally justified, safe, just and proper to direct investigation, keeping in view principles laid down in the cases of Bhajan Lal and V.C. Shukla (supra). 

28. In view of the materials which have been placed on record and the peculiar facts and circumstances projected in the case, we find that no case is made out to direct the investigation as prayed for”.

Read the Full Text of the Judgment (Official Link)