REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  140 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] NO. 16714 OF 2006]

Parasnath Tiwari & Anr.     …. Appellants

Versus

Central Reserve Police Force & Anr.      …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal the scope for consideration is restricted only to actual  

quantum of compensation payable to the appellants. The appellants  

herein  filed  a  Writ  Petition  in  the  High Court  of  Chhattisgarh  at  

Bilaspur seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay to them  

compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of mental agony and loss  

suffered by the appellants due to death of their son while in service.  

1

The  High  Court  after  hearing  both  the  parties  issued  an  order  

directing  for  payment  of  compensation  of  Rs.  1  lakh  to  the  

appellants but in respect of their prayer for payment of liberalised  

pension, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

3. The present Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellants, who  

are the parents of the deceased, Sunil Kumar Tiwari, a Constable  

with the Central Reserve Police Force [for short ‘CRPF’] who died  

while in service at Mizoram.

4. In order to fully appreciate the contentions it would be necessary to  

set out certain facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition in the  

High  Court  of  Chhattisgarh.  The  deceased  was  employed  as  a  

Constable in 66 Battalion of CRPF at Bhubaneshwar. However, at  

the relevant point of time he was working in the CRPF at Mizoram.  

On 01.02.1982, the appellant received information from the office  

of Respondent No. 2 that his son died on 01.02.1982 at Mizoram  

and  that  his  last  rites  were  performed  at  the  place  where  the  

deceased was working at the relevant point of time, but no such  

intimation or information was given to the parents.

5. The respondents intimated the appellants that a fellow Constable –  

Desh  Raj  while  being  on  sentry  duty  in  the  residence  of  the  

Development Commissioner at Aizwal saw a man climbing a guava  

2

tree in the moonlight and consequently shot four rounds of bullets  

within a distance of 15 yards as a result of which the deceased died  

on the spot.  In  the Writ  Petition,  the appellant  stated that  they  

made several representations to the Respondent No. 2 for sending  

the  last  photograph  of  the  deceased,  which,  however,  were  not  

received by them despite such representations. It was, however,  

stated that the appellant received a letter dated, 18.12.1982 from a  

friend of the deceased, viz.,  Ravindra Kumar Sharma, wherein it  

was stated that the death of the deceased was not an accident but  

it was a brutal murder by his fellow constables. Being aggrieved,  

the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court praying for the  

following reliefs: - 1) to direct the respondents to inquire into the  

matter and report to the Court and the appellant, 2) to direct the  

respondents  to  take  action  to  book  the  culprit,  3)  that  an  

independent  inquiry  be  ordered  by  the  CBI  or  some  other  

responsible  authority  to  look  into  the  case  of  the  death  of  the  

appellant’s  son  and  4)  if  the  Hon’ble  High  Court  comes  to  the  

conclusion  that  the  death  of  the  appellant’s  son  was  not  by  an  

accident,  then,  the  appellant  be  suitably  compensated  by  the  

respondents.  The respondents be directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as  

compensation to the appellants.

3

6. In the said Writ Petition, the respondents replied stating inter alia  

that the death of the deceased was an accident on the intervening  

night of 30th November/1st December, 1982. The Costable-Desh Raj,  

who had fired on the deceased was arrested by the Civil  Police,  

Aizwal and a criminal case was registered against him. It was also  

stated  that  a  departmental  inquiry  was  conducted  against  

Constable-Desh  Raj  who  was  responsibe  for  the  death  of  the  

deceased,  and  LNK  Ranjit  Singh  Yadav,  who  was  the  Guard  

Commander. It was also mentioned that pursuant to the aforesaid  

departmental  inquiry,  Constable-Desh  Raj  was  dismissed  from  

service  and  Guard  Commander-LNK  Ranjit  Singh  Yadav  was  

punished with reversion to the post of Constable for 16 months.  

However,  while  disposing  of  the  Writ  Petition  the  High  Court  

observed that the appellant had suffered mental  agony for more  

than 20 years, particularly, when the fact of the cause of death was  

not informed to the appellant, his wife and relatives and further by  

sending a photograph of a person not being the deceased. The High  

Court was of the view that the appellant, his wife and other family  

members had been denied proper information consequent to which  

they have suffered mental agony and financial difficulties for a long  

period.

4

7. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed  

the  respondents  to  pay  a  sum of  Rs.  1  lakh  with  costs  of  Rs.  

5,000/- to the appellant and his wife for the mental agony and loss  

suffered by them.  

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the High Court,  

the present Special Leave Petition was filed on which we have heard  

the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel appearing for  

the  appellants  restricted  his  argument  only  to  the  issue  of  

enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded. No submission  

was made against the order denying liberalised pension. As such,  

the order passed by the High Court denying liberalised pension is  

not considered and interfered with.

9. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the amount of  

Rs. 1 lakh, which is directed to be paid is too meager an amount to  

be paid for loss and mental agony caused to the appellant and his  

wife. He has drawn our attention to paragraph 24 of the judgment  

passed by the High Court wherein it is observed by the High Court  

that  the  appellant  has  suffered  mental  agony  for  more  than 20  

years. Relying on the said observation, the counsel submitted that  

the amount of compensation should have been at least Rs. 5 lakhs  

and in support of the said submission he relied upon the decision of  

5

the Supreme Court in  Charanjit Kaur (Smt.) v.  Union of India  

and Others [(1994) 2 SCC 1].

10.Mrs. Indira Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing  

on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that in the facts  

and circumstances of the case payment of Rs. 1 lakh compensation  

should be held to be justified as there was no negligence on the  

part of the CRPF in the entire incident and that the incident had  

happened because of a mistaken identity only for which the family  

is being suitably compensated.

11.The son of the appellant was working in a sensitive area. Constable  

Desh  Raj  who  was  in  the  sentry  duty  at  the  residence  of  

Development  Commissioner,  Aizwal  mistook  the  deceased  as  an  

intruder to the house and as a measure of safety he fired upon the  

deceased. On facts, it turns out to be a case of accident and wrong  

identity. However, the death of son of the appellant, is definitely  

not  only  a  personal  loss  to  the  family  but  also  financial.  The  

deceased  was  a  victim  of  an  unfortunate  incident  and  this  has  

caused a heavy loss and mental agony to the family members of  

the deceased. The aforesaid findings recorded by the High Court  

6

have not been challenged by the respondents before us by filing  

any independent appeal.

12.That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the  

amount of Rs. 1 lakh directed to be paid to the appellants towards  

compensation  and  damages  is  meager.  Therefore,  we  are  to  

consider  what  would be an appropriate  amount  of  compensation  

which is payable to the appellants.

13. The case of  Charanjit Kaur (Supra) relied upon by the learned  

counsel  appearing for the appellants is  clearly  distinguishable  on  

facts and, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be  

made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  

The son of the appellant was a Constable and, therefore,  in our  

considered  opinion  there  would  have  to  be  some  surmises  and  

conjectures in arriving at the amount of compensation payable by  

the respondents to the appellants. We have been informed that the  

appellant no. 1 is an old man and that the deceased was the only  

earning member of the family. The earnings of the deceased were a  

source of sustenance for the family. Besides, loss of a son at such a  

young age creates a void in the family, which cannot be filed up by  

making payment of any compensation. Considering these facts and  

being alive to the escalating cost of living, we deem it appropriate  

7

to enhance the amount of compensation fixed by the High Court.  

We, therefore, direct that respondents shall pay to the appellant an  

amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation instead of Rs. 1 lakh fixed  

by the High Court. The said amount of Rs. 2 lakhs shall be paid  

within a period of six weeks from today. The amount already paid  

towards  compensation  fixed  by  the  High  Court  shall  in  natural  

course be deducted while complying with this order. If the amount  

is  not  paid  within  six  weeks  from  today,  the  balance  amount  

payable shall earn interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum  

from expiry of date of six weeks till the date of payment.

14.The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

…...........………………..J.          [V.S. Sirpurkar]

       .....………………………J.      [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

New Delhi, January 11, 2010.

8