SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 169

2000(5) Supreme 7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Amitadyuti Kumar -Appellant
versus
State of W.B. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 467 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1571 of 1999)
Decided on 21-1-2000

Headnote:Custodial death-Compensation for-High Court granting Rs. 20,000 to widow of deceased-Appeal for increasing compensation contending quantum of Rs. 20,000 two meagre-Compensation enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-. (Paras 5 and 6)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has directed payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to the widow of deceased Debu Pramanik in lieu of compensation granted by the Human Rights Commission.

4. When the matter came up before this Court, a limited notice was issued on the question of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant forcefully contends that the quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- is too meagre even to have a sustenance for the widow and the other family members and at least the compensation should be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 1.5 lac.

6. The counsel for the State of West Bengal on the other hand contends that the Human Rights Commission of the State has considered the matter from all angles including the profession which was being pursued by the deceased before his custodial death and therefore the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- is adequate. Having considered the rival submissions and on the findings arrived at by the High Court of Calcutta we think it appropriate to enhance the compensation to Rs. 70,000/-. Since Rs. 20,000/- has already been paid, the State of West Bengal is directed to pay another sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the widow of deceased Debu Pramanik within a period of eight weeks from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Needless to mention that rest of the directions given by the High Court remain unaltered.

(C.R.) Appeal disposed of accordingly.

**************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top