1996 Supreme(SC) 894

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., B.N.Kirpal, S.P.Bharucha, JJ.
Krishna Mohan Shukla
Versus
Union Of India
Date of Decision : 5/1/96

Headnote:

Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 – Section 9 - "The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985", - Application - certain Deputy Commissioners came to be appointed under Section 6 of the Act for registration of claims arising within the area of their respective jurisdictions. Para 4(1) of the Scheme provides that an application for claim shall be made to the Deputy Commissioner concerned in the appropriate form within a period of sixty days from the date notified by the Commissioner inviting applications for claims. We were told by the learned Additional Solicitor General that no date has been notified by the Commissioner under this provision. Para 4-A(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in para 4, all applications received for claims, whether before or after the commencement of the Scheme, shall stand transferred along with the relevant records to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner concerned and as if such application has been made under para 4. The Deputy Commissioner is then expected to process the application in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Para 5(1) next provides that on receipt of a claim under para 4 of the Scheme (the application under para 4-A is also to be treated as an application under para 4). The Deputy Commissioner shall, subject to the provisions of sub-paras (3) and (4), place the claim in the appropriate category under sub-para (2) and thereafter register the claim. Sub-para (2) of para 5 enumerates the categories from (a) to (o) in which the claim has to be placed before registration of the claim. After the claims are so categorised, sub-para (3) of para 5 states that on the consideration of a claim, if the Deputy Commissioner is of the opinion that the claim falls in a category different from the category mentioned by the claimant, he may decide the appropriate category after giving an opportunity to the claimant to be heard and also after taking into consideration any facts made available to him in this behalf by the Government. It would appear from this sub-paragraph of the Scheme that if the Deputy Commissioner is of the opinion that the claim falls in a different category from the category mentioned by the claimant, he may decide the appropriate category after giving the claimant an opportunity of being heard. This would prima facie indicate that the prima facie view of the Deputy Commissioner would be that the claimant is placed in a higher category because it is only then that there is a requirement of hearing the claimant before passing appropriate orders. We will deal with this aspect a little later. However, since these are cases processed under para 4-A, they were not cases in which the claimant had an opportunity of indicating the category to which he or she belonged. Therefore, these were cases in which the category was determined at the registration stage administratively, under sub-paras (1) and (2) of para 5 of the Scheme. Cases of claimants who raised a grievance in regard to the correctness of the categorisation in relation to their claims had also to be processed and finalised either under the inherent power of the Deputy Commissioner or in exercise of power under para 5(3) of the Scheme – ) WHAT then is the proper direction to be issued? - Held, We think that all the cases where the Welfare Commissioner disagreed with the upward categorisation conceded by the Deputy Commissioner as per the claim made by the claimant, would have to be reopened for the purpose of proper categorisation. Even in cases where the categorisation though upward, but not to the level claimed by the claimant, has been conceded to by the Welfare Commissioner as per the view of the Deputy Commissioner, notwithstanding the intervention of the Welfare Commissioner, the claimants would have a right of appeal and they would be entitled to exercise the same within the period allowed by the Scheme as if the period runs against them from today. Such cases will have to be reopened, treating the order of the Deputy Commissioner as final and then the right to appeal may be exercised, if so advised. - the Report of the Committee appointed by this Court that, in several cases, the claimants had made a grievance and had even moved the appellate authority, but the appellate authority decided that claims which are settled in Lok Adalats cannot be entertained by way of an appeal. While that approach of the appellate authority may be correct, as is evident from the order of 27-9-1995 in Appeals Nos. 01/198 of 1995 to 01/271 of 1995, the fact remains that many of the claimants had entertained a grievance regarding categorisation and in regard to the manner in which their claims were determined at the Lok Adalats. Before we pass final orders in this behalf, we would like the Office of the Welfare Commissioner to place before us statistical information regarding the total number of claims decided at each Lok Adalat indicating the claim made by the claimant and the compensation awarded and the date of the Lok Adalat. This would enable us to determine whether the grievance that the compensation paid was grossly inadequate, is well founded.