http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1295 of 2002

PETITIONER: State of Punjab and Ors

RESPONDENT: Kuldip Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/06/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      The State of Punjab and its functionaries question the  correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of  the Punjab and Harayna High Court. On a petition under  Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short  ’Cr.P.C.’), the High Court by the impugned order directed the  appellant-State to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- over and above  what was paid to him as ex-gratia payment. It was held that  the same would be in final settlement of claim of the  respondent.    2.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

In July 1991 State of Punjab was in the grab of terrorism  at its height. Respondent suffered bullet injuries and his hand  above the forearm had to be amputated. On 18.1.1991 the  Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Relief and  Resettlement, Chandigarh, wrote to Deputy Commissioners  and Sub-Divisional Officers (C) in the State regarding revised  scales of relief for the persons adversely affected as a result of  terrorists action by security forces acting in civil power.      

3.      It was provided therein as follows:       

"The question of grant of special ex-gratia relief to  those who sustain permanent disability less than  100% in terrorists violence/security forces acting in  aid of civil power was under active consideration of  this Department and it has been decided that in the  event of innocent civilian sustaining disability less  than 100% in terrorist violence by security forces  acting in aid of civil power, he/she may be paid  special ex-gratia grant at the following scales:   i.      in the event of disability upto 25%  Rs.5,000/- ii.     in the event of disability from 25% to 50%  Rs.10,000.         In the event of disability above 50% and  less than 100% Rs.20,000/-."     4.      On 7.7.1991 during the ambush in terrorist chase the  respondent was hurt.  He was visiting a relative in the night.  The police asked him to stop. According to the police forces he  did not pay any heed to stop the vehicle. In any event, police  started shooting, several bullets hit his right forearm which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

was immediately blown off and severed from upper arm.  He  was taken to the hospital where the right arm below elbow was  amputated.  Thereafter also the respondent had to undergo  another surgery at PGI, Chandigarh as he had developed  abscess. He was paid Rs.20,000/- in terms of the notification  and a sum of Rs.3,378/- as medical expenses. After about 10  years, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed  demanding compensation of rupees 3 lacs.  The claim was  resisted on several grounds including delayed approach and  the non-applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C.  The High Court  passed the following order:                                           Reply filed, the same is taken on record.           The State of Punjab will pay to the  petitioner a further amount of Rs.80,000/-  within a period of three months.  This will be  final settlement of the claim of the petitioner..         The petition is disposed of accordingly."

5.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State  and its functionaries submitted that the amount paid was  fixed in terms of the notification and, therefore, the High  Court’s direction for payment is clearly unsustainable.                                   6.      In response, learned counsel for the respondent  submitted that the amount was given as a purely palliative  measure and, therefore, there was no restriction on the High  Court’s power to award compensation. It was also submitted  that the amount awarded for medical expenses is petty.              7.       A bare look at the notification dated 18.1.1991 makes  the position clear that it was paid as "special ex-gratia grant".  The limit was also fixed.  Therefore, the question of the  respondent making any claim in terms of the notification for a  higher amount does not arise. Additionally, the respondent  was not claiming compensation in a writ petition but under  Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such a claim is also misconceived.   Additionally, the claim was made 10 years after the amount  fixed by the Government had been paid to him.  It is also not  in dispute that the respondent has been appointed as a  Chowkidar in a government school. Therefore, strictly  speaking, in terms of the notification nothing further is to be  paid to the respondent.  But we find that medical expenses  paid are certainly low compared to the normal expenses which  appear to have been spent for the operations and treatment.   We fix the quantum at Rs.20,000/-.  The same is in addition  to the fixed sum already paid by way of ex-gratia  compensation under the notification. Though there was a  belated claim, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the  case we have not treated the belated approach to be fatal. An  additional sum of Rs.17,000/- shall be paid to the respondent  within two months.  The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid  extent.