Introduction:

A mother loses her son--a college-going one, at that--said to be due to medical negligence. She seeks compensation under a scheme: the Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme. She gets certain amount awarded. The disbursement delayed, she files a writ petition. The Government takes a plea--after awarding the compensation-- that the mother is ineligible for the benefit: The Committee that awarded the compensation is not competent; the grant is ultra vires of the Committee. Thus a jurisdictional issue demands an answer.

Facts:

2. To touch upon the facts ever so briefly, I may note that the petitioner's son, then studying in the U.K., came home in 2012. Before he could go back, he fell ill and got admitted into a hospital. He died on 27.5.2012: The doctors declared that he died of liver failure. Distraught, the mother filed a criminal case in Crime No.432 of 2013 in Ernakulam North Police Station. The FIR is said to have been registered on 5.4.2015.

3. Soon after her son's death, the mother approached the District Legal Services Authority and filed PLP No.824 of 2014 claiming compensation because of her son's death. The Committee called for a report from the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ernakulam, who submitted it on 16.6.2015. The Committee, then, passed Ext.P4 award on 20th November 2015. When the award was pending before the Chairman, State Legal Services Authority, the mother felt that the disbursement was unduly delayed. She has filed this Writ Petition.

Submissions:

Petitioner's:

4. Sri S. Sabarinath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has passionately pleaded and contended that the petitioner and her husband are destitute. They have no source of income other than the meager pension the petitioner's husband receives. To send her son abroad for higher studies, the couple mortgaged its house and obtained an educational loan from Vijaya Bank, the fourth respondent.

5. Sri Sabarinath further submits that because of the calamity that struck the petitioner's family, the couple could not repay the loan. As a result the bank initiated recovery proceedings, which ended in the Ext.P2 award passed by the National Lok Adalat. To elaborate, Sri Sabarinath submits that the couple consented to the Lok Adalat's award in Bank's favour; as it had hoped, bona fide, that the compensation the mother was bound to receive would square up the loan.

6. Now, with no justification the Committee that passed the award, argues Sri Sabarinath, has taken a U-turn and refused to honour the award--to discharge the amount.

7. Sri Sabarinath has taken me through Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code ("the Code") and Ext.P3 Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 ("the Scheme"). In elaboration, he has submitted that the third respondent is estopped from negating the award on a specious premise that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit. According to him, the third respondent cannot review its own order. Sri Sabarinath has also contended that the petitioner fulfils all the eligibility criteria and answers the description of ‘victim’, too.

Respondent's:

8. Sri Santhosh Mathew, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, has submitted that the petitioner does not answer the description ‘victim’. He has also submitted that Ext.P3 mandates only the procedure. In the first place, the petitioner ought to have established before the Committee that under section 357A of Cr.P.C., she is entitled to compensation.

9. In elaboration, Sri Mathew would submit that clauses (iv) and (vi) provide the contingencies under which a victim could approach the Committee directly. In that context, he submits that the petitioner fulfils neither of those contingencies. Since Ext.P3 scheme came into effect from 24.2.2014, the petitioner's application, contends Sri Santhosh Mathew, was only under the scheme, rather than Ext.R2(1), which was an ad hoc mechanism holding the field before Ext.P3. In the alternative, he has submitted that e