2022 Supreme(J&K) 377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Union of India & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Iqbal Begum & Ors. - Respondents
MA No. 45 of 2013
Decided On : 27-04-2022
For the Petitioner: Nazir Ahmad Bhat.
For the Respondent: M.Y. Bhat; Furqan Ahmad.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court under the Motor Vehicles Act to work out fair compensation in death cases.
Headnote:
Compensation - Recovery of Damages and Compensation - Suit No. 5/Pauper titled Abdul Karim Rohella (through legal heirs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, National Insurance Compnay Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 - The court discussed the evidence and issues related to the killing of the plaintiff's son by security forces, the calculation of compensation, and the principles for working out compensation in death cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court found that the deceased was an innocent citizen killed in crossfire and that the compensation awarded by the trial court was arbitrary and irrational. The court followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court under the Motor Vehicles Act to work out fair compensation for the respondents/plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for recovery of damages and compensation for the killing of the plaintiff's son by security forces. The trial court awarded a sum of Rs. 25.00 lacs, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till final realization of the compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was an innocent citizen killed in crossfire and that the compensation awarded by the trial court was arbitrary and irrational. The court followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court under the Motor Vehicles Act to work out fair compensation for the respondents/plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues included whether the deceased was killed by the defendants forces, the deceased's profession and earnings, the establishment of business and dependency, psychological impact on the family, and the valuation of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the deceased was an innocent citizen killed in crossfire and that the compensation awarded by the trial court was arbitrary and irrational. The court followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court under the Motor Vehicles Act to work out fair compensation for the respondents/plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was modified, and the compensation was worked out to be Rs. 14,98,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree passed by the trial court till realization together with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. Payment of requisite court fee was made the first charge on the decretal amount.
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellants, through the medium of instant appeal, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2012 (for short 'impugned judgment') passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar in suit No. 5/Pauper titled Abdul Karim Rohella (through legal heirs) Vs. Union of India & Ors., for recovery of damages and compensation, whereby the appellants and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were directed to pay respondents/plaintiffs an amount of Rs. 24.00 lacs with Rs. 1.00 lac on account of mental shock and Rs. 50,000/- as suit costs, along-with simple interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of decree.
2. The factual background of the case is that the suit was presented in forma-pauperis and in terms of the trial court order dated 02.12.1998 leave has been granted to the respondents herein to sue as an indigent person. The claim for damages was on the allegation that the personnel of the appellants on 12.06.1993 have killed the son of the plaintiff Abdul Karim Rohella namely Tariq Parvaiz Rohella by shooting him deliberately. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Abdul Karim Rohella died and his legal heirs (present respondents 1 to 4) were brought on record and the suit was decided in terms of the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2012 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 and against the appellants as well as respondents 5 and 6. The compensation of Rs. 24.00 lacs plus Rs. 1.00 lac on account of mental shock and agony, and Rs. 50,000/- as suit costs was decreed.
3. Respondents/plaintiffs in the suit had pleaded that the deceased Tariq Parvaiz Rohella, who was 27 years of age at the time of his killing by the security forces of 4 th Bn. BSF, was a deliberate attempt and the said deceased was tied with a pole at Sheikh Dawood Colony, Batmaloo. An FIR No. 114/93 was lodged in this regard in the Police Station, Sherghari. It was further pleaded in the suit that the deceased was dealing in wholesale business of food stuffs and kiryana, where he had invested an amount of Rs. 2.55 lacs with monthly earnings of Rs. 8,000-10,000/-. The deceased, as contended in the suit, had invested all the earnings of the plaintiff/father who was retired Government Teacher. Besides, loan was also raised from J&K Bank Branch, Batamaloo. The untimely assassination of the plaintiff's son engulfed the plaintiff and his family into permanent wail subjecting the plaintiff and his family to deprivation besides inflicting horror, shock and agony as they were deprived of the sole bread earner. It was further stated that had the deceased's son not been killed and allowed to live his normal life he would have earned in coming 40 years more than two crores and since the plaintiff and his family have been deprived of this income, as such, defendants (appellants and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein) are bound to pay the amount to the plaintiff as the murder had been committed by the security forces during the course of their employment, exposing the defendants to this liability.
4. The suit was contested by the appellants who filed their written statement refuting the claim of respondent No. 1. Besides raising some preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, the appellants pleaded that no such incident as alleged in the suit had ever happened in the area. The appellants categorically denied their involvement in the incident leading to the alleged death of the son of the plaintiff.
5. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that as per the record of the appellants/defendants, on 12.06.1993 a party consisting of commando platoon led by Commandant of the BSF conducted a search operation in the area of Ridge Chowk, Batmaloo, where the militants were reportedly hiding. They fired at the party from different directions. Later on this commando platoon was reinforced by calling company strength from 4th Bn. BSF and 26