J&K HC Upholds Compensation For Man Disabled Due To Tear Gas Fired By Police, Says Criminal Justice Would Look 'Hollow' If Victim Not Compensated

It was noted that the trial court had relied on the communication of SSP, Srinagar, which reported that the minor plaintiff received injuries when a tear gas shell fired by police first struck a shutter of a shop and then rebounded and hit the plaintiff's head resulting into 75% disability.

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that “Criminal justice would look hollow if justice is not done to the victim of the crime. The subject of victimology is gaining ground. A victim of crime cannot be a forgotten man in the criminal justice system. It is he, who has suffered the most. His family is ruined, particularly in case of his being disabled for whole of his life. The shocking aspect of the matter is that petitioner is facing such a situation, which cannot be reduced in writing.”

The court said that the computations made by the Trial Court for the grant of compensation in favour of the respondent also do not call for any interference.

The court relied on V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu and another, (2004) wherein it was held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement refused or not available in the house or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in station, due service has to be presumed

BACKGROUND

The appeal was filed by the State of J&K against an ex-parte decree passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar that awarded compensation to the victim who at the time of the incident was a minor. The compensation was claimed to rely on the report of the then SSP reporting that the said injury was a result of the tear gas hitting the minor victim. The trial court awarded ₹10.55 lakhs with 6% interest as compensation.

The petitioner contended that the said decree was passed without giving notice for hearing the other side and was merely passed relying on the report of the then SSP. It also contended that the amount so awarded by the trial court was exorbitant and heavily inflated.

The court, however, rejected both of these contentions and held that Petitioner was duly served with the notice and did not appear to contest the said case. The court explained section 27 of the General Clauses Act and reiterated that once notice is sent to the party on the correct address the same is said to have been duly served unless evidence to the contrary is produced by such party.

The court also deemed it not to be a proper case which could warrant interference with respect to the decree passed as well as for computation done in order to arrive at an amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner. According, the Appeal was dismissed.

APPEARANCE:

Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG for Appellants

P. Imroz, Advocate for Respondents.

Case-Title: State of J&K and Anr. Vs Yawar Ahmad Bhat (minor)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 38