PARASNATH TIWARI AND ANR.versusCENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND ANR.

                    [2010] 1 S.C.R. 635


           PARASNATH TIWARI AND ANR.                          A
                           v.
     CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND ANR.
            (Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2010)
                    JANUARY 11, 2010
                                                              B
       [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                    SHARMA, JJ.]

      Compensation - Death of CRPF constable while in
service - Deceased was only earning member of the family C
- Mental agony and financial difficulties to parents of
deceased, who were purportedly denied proper information as
regards cause of the death for long period - They filed writ
petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs - High Court
granted compensation of Rs. 1 lakh - On appeal, held: D
Considering the facts, and in view of the escalating cost of
living, it is appropriate that the compensation amount be
enhanced to Rs.2 lakhs.
     A CRPF constable died while in service, when a
fellow constable on sentry duty, allegedly mistook him for E
an intruder in the house of the Development
Commissioner and as a measure of safety, fired upon him
resulting in his death. Appellants, the parents of the
deceased, filed writ petition in High Court seeking for
direction to the respondents to pay them compensation F
of Rs.5 lakhs on account of mental agony and loss
suffered by them due to death of their son while in
service.
     The High Court came to a finding that for more than
20 years, the appellants had been denied proper G
information as regards the cause of the death of their son,
consequent to which they suffered mental agony and
financial difficulties for a long period, and allowed the writ
petition directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1
                               635                             H
    636      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [201 O] 1 S.C.R.


A   lakhs to the appellants as compensation.
         In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the
    appellants that the amount of Rs.1 lakh was too meagre
    an amount to be paid for loss and mental agony caused
    to the appellants.
B
          Disposing of the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. The son of the appellants was working in
  a sensitive area. A fellow constable, who was in the
  sentry duty at the residence of the Development
C Commissioner, Aizwal, mistook the appellant's son as an
  intruder to the house and as a measure of safety, he fired
  upon the appellant's son. On facts, it turns out to be a
  case of accident and wrong identity. However, the death
  of son of the appellants, is definitely not only a personal
D loss to the family but also financial. The deceased was a
  victim of an unfortunate incident and this caused a heavy
  loss and mental agony to the family members of the
  deceased. That being the position, the amount of Rs.1
  lakh directed to be paid to the appellants towards
E compensation and damages Is meagre. [Paras 11 and 12)
    [640-D-H]
       2. The victim was a Constable and, therefore, there
  would have to be some surmises and conjectures in
  arriving at the amount of compensation payable by the
F respondents to the appellants. Appellant no.1 is an old
  man and th~ 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
G cannot be filled up by making payment of any
  compensation. Considering these facts and being alive
  to the escalating cost of living, it is appropriate to
  enhance the amount of compensation fixed by the High
  Court. The respondents are directed to pay to the
H
     PARASNATH TIWARI v. CENTRAL RESERVE                    637
               POLICE FORCE
appellant an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation                 A
Instead of Rs.1 lakh fixed by the High Court. [Para 13)
[641-B-EJ
    Charanjit Kaur (Smt.) v. Union of India and Others, (1994)
2 sec 1 distinguished.
                                                                   B
                      Case Law Reference:
     (1994) 2 SCC 1               distinguished        Para 9
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 140
of 2010.
    From the Judgement & Order dated 11.7.2006 of the High
                                                                   c
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition Nos. 554 of
2001 & 2407 of 1996.
     Sarabjeet Dutta, l.J. Yadav, P.P. Singh for the Appellants.
      Indira Jaising, ASG, Binu Tamta, S.N. Tedol, Sushma Suri     D
for the Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. In this appeal the scope for consideration is restricted E
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 F
due to death of their son while in service. 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.                                             G
     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    H
    638      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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.
C      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 tree in the moonlight and consequently
  shot four rounds of bullets within a distance of 15 yards as a
D 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
E that the appellant received a letter dated, 18.12.1982 from a
  friend of the deceased, viz., Ravindra Kumar Sharma, wherein
  itwas 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
F 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
G 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.
H         6. In the said Writ Petition, the respondents replied stating
    PARASNATH TIWARI v. CENTRAL RESERVE    639
  POLICE FORCE [OR. MUKUNOAKAM SHARMA, J ]

 inter alia that the death of the deceased was an accident on A
 the intervening night of 30th November/1st December, 1982.
 The Constable-Oesh 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-Oesh Raj who was B
 responsible 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-Oesh Raj was dismissed from service and Guard
 Commander-LNK Ranjit Singh Yadav was punished with c
 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
                                                                  0
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.
                                                                  E
      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 · F
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 G
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   H
    640     SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A   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
s   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
    the Supreme Court in Charanjit Kaur (Smt.) v. Union of India
C   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
D 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
E 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
F 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 have not been
G 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
H   appellants towards compensation and damages is meager.
    PARASNATH TIWARI v. CENTRAL RESEt<VE  641
 POLICE FORCE [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

Therefore, we are to consider what would be an appropriate A
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
                                                                       8
 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         C
 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            D
these facts and being alive to the escalating cost of living, we
deem it appropriate 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
comper)sation instead of Rs. 1 lakh fixed by the High Court. The       E
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               F
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.
                                                                       G
B.B.B.                                      Appeal disposed of.