Income Not Sufficient For Treatment & Reintegration: Calcutta High Court Directs Payment Of Further Compensation To Male Acid Attack Survivor

The Calcutta High Court has directed the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to consider and enhance the compensation awarded to a male acid attack survivor. 

Under the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, the petitioner was paid Rs 3 lakh, which was the minimum stipulated amount.

A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya upon noting that the petitioner had credibly pointed out that he needed much more than just amount for his treatment and reintegration into society, held:

The meagre income may not be sufficient to meet the up-keep of the petitioner and his family and to finance his treatment and reintegration in society in view of peculiar trauma and fallout of an acid attack suffered by such victims. Hence, the present job of the petitioner as a para-teacher, even if existent, cannot be a fetter for the petitioner to claim further compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme for the damage suffered to him due to the acid attack.

It was argued by the petitioner that he was required to undergo plastic surgery and several other medical procedures involving huge expenses, for treatment, care and reintegration into society due to the partial disfigurement of his face from the acid attack suffered by him.

Petitioner's counsel cited several Apex Court judgements to show that the Victim Compensation Scheme had been envisaged not only in terms of physical injury but due to the victim's inability to lead a full life and to enjoy those amenities which are being robbed of him as result of an acid attack should also be taken.

Counsel relied on Section 357A of the CrPC to argue that the schemes for compensation were gender-neutral, and that the court had ample power to grant compensation over and above the amount granted by the SLSA.

Counsel for the respondents took a non-adversarial stance and pointed out that the petitioner was already paid Rs 3 lakh, although he was found to be 44% disabled and not totally. 

Upon hearing the arguments, the Court focused on Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. which had been inserted by the 2009 amendment to introduce the concept of Victim Compensation Scheme.

It was noted that this led to the creation of the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, which only defined Rs 3 lakh as the minimum compensation and not the upper limit. 

It is always within the framework of the Scheme to grant further compensation to the petitioner over and above Rs. 3 lakh. The Scheme does not also restrict such payment to a one-time disbursal. Since the Scheme is a beneficial piece of legislation, it has to be given wide amplitude...for the purpose of enabling the treatment of the victim and to facilitate his/her rehabilitation and reintegration into mainstream society, the Court held.

Court noted that the petitioner had produced sufficient prima facie material to indicate that even after spending the said amount, he was in dire requirement of further amounts to finance his follow-up treatments and a meaningful reintegration into mainstream society, which was directly related to the acid attack suffered by him.

It further held that even though the petitioner was working as a para-teacher, the same would not fetter his claim for further compensation due to damage suffered in the attack. 

The incalculable damage suffered due to acid attack on the face cannot be measured merely by the percentage of disability due to the incalculable loss suffered, which is obviously the rational basis of segregating ordinary disability - permanent or partial from acid attack in the Schedule of the Scheme itself. Hence, the percentage of disability is also not a relevant factor in the present case, it was held.

Accordingly, the court invoked its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, and Section 357-A(5) of the CrPC to recommend the SLSA to pay further compensation to the petitioner.

The petitioner was directed to submit all relevant documents for adjudication of the quantum of his claim, and the SLSA was directed to complete its enquiry within two months and disburse the amount payable to the petitioner within a fortnight of the conclusion of the enquiry. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 348