- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- High Court Digest On Compensation-...
High Court Digest On Compensation- 2022
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 Jan 2023 12:00 PM IST
Here is 40 times High Courts granted relief to persons/ families caught in peculiar circumstances and ordered compensation in the year 2022:1. 'Divyang' Man Forced To Ride Bicycle In Govt Job Interview | "State Failed Its Special Citizen": Allahabad HC Orders ₹5 Lakh CompensationCase title - Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary ( Higher Education) And 4 Others [WRIT - A No....
Here is 40 times High Courts granted relief to persons/ families caught in peculiar circumstances and ordered compensation in the year 2022:
Case title - Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary ( Higher Education) And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 18302 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 425
In a significant order affirming the importance of human dignity, the Allahabad High Court granted Rs. 5 Lakh compensation to a differently abled person (divyang) who was forced to ride a bicycle during an interview for an appointment on the post of Library Peon at a Government Degree College.
"The amount of compensation has been awarded to let the petitioner know, the State may take time to hear & understand its citizen and his plight but, it is neither deaf nor heartless as may ever remain indifferent, forcing him to drag his feet, almost literally, to this Court to seek justice. The citizen works at the heart of the giant being the State is. Unless the heart beats freely, the being cannot thrive," the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh remarked as it partly allowed the plea filed by 'Divyang' man Pradeep Kumar Gupta.
Case Title: Mariyayi Machhimaar Sahkari Sansthya Maryadit Versus Department of Fisheries and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
A bench led by Justice Shahrukh Kathawalla directed disbursal of ad-hoc compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to each of the 953 fisherfolk families being affected by an infrastructure project in Thane.
"As the fisherfolk and their families cannot be expected to starve till the authorities decide the quantum of compensation…" the bench observed in their order.
The court noted that the State's Draft Compensation Policy dated November 29, 2021, adopts the approach of the National Green Tribunal. According to the NGT's calculation in the matter of Ramdas Janardan Kohli on February 27, 2015, compensation for one family was pegged at Rs. 6 lakh for three years.
Case Title: Nitin Navindas Hundiwala vs Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
The Bombay High Court observed that boarding a crowded train for a Mumbaikar was a 'calculated risk' not a 'criminal act' and directed the railways to pay over Rs 3 lakh compensation to a septuagenarian who slipped and fell right after boarding a crowded train in 2011.
Justice Bharati Dangre set aside the Railways Claims Tribunal's order rejecting the senior citizen's claim and held that the incident would fall within the meaning of "untoward incident" under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act.
"If in the daily chores, a passenger attempts to gain an entry, into an overcrowded train and is pushed by other passengers, resulting into his fall, there is no reason why such incident cannot fall within the ambit of 'untoward incident' and [it] wasn't an instance wherein the Railways were exempt from liability."
Case Title: Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
Observing that liberty under Article 21 is also available to foreign citizens, the Bombay High Court today ordered compensation and granted bail to Nigerian national incarcerated in 2020 on the basis of an erroneous forensic report. Justice Bharti Dangre said that the applicant cannot be kept in detention merely because he is a foreign citizen and has criminal antecedents if there was no recovery of drugs under the NDPS Act.
The court suo motu directed the Maharashtra Government to pay the accused Rs. 2 lakh compensation within six weeks for wrongful incarceration after the state submitted that it doesn't have a policy for compensation.
Case Title: Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 390
The Bombay High Court held that a passenger who is forced to cross the railway tracks due to absence of a foot over bridge and gets hit by a train cannot be called negligent and his dependents would be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur Bench referred to the definition of 'passenger' under section 2(29) of the Railways Act and observed that the definition does not suggest that a passenger ceases to be a passenger after alighting from the train and meeting with an accident. The court noted that the Railways Act does not contemplate or recognise this concept.
Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur Bench allowed the appeal filed by the widow, son, and mother of a man who died after being hit by a train while crossing the railway track and awarded a compensation of Rs. 8 Lakhs to the appellants.
Case Title: 'AK' v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 430
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered by police against a 9-year-old child for accidentally hitting a lady while riding a bicycle despite the exception provided in section 83 of the IPC.
"The action reflects complete non-application of mind by the concerned officer whilst registering the offence", the bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice S. M. Modak stated in its order.
"Misconception or ignorance of law is not an excuse, much less, for a police officer and in the peculiar facts, more so, having regard to the fact that the child was only 9 years of age. This action of the police i.e., of registration of FIR, has resulted in traumatizing a 9-year-old boy", the court said and awarded cost of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.
Case Title: West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Sukanta Kumar Singha and Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 30
The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) to pay an amount to the tune of Rs.6,07,000 to a consumer for unauthorised disconnection of electricity supply due to which the consumer had suffered unnecessary harassment. Calling the conduct of WBSEDCL as 'deplorable', Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, "In cases such as the present one, it is the gross laches of the Distribution Licensee which compelled the respondent no.1, a consumer, to suffer unnecessary ignominy and harassment..As far as the conduct of the Distribution Licensee in the present case is concerned, the same is deplorable and the consumer was compelled to run from pillar to post at every point of time." Accordingly, the Court directed, "Hence, there was no scope of reducing the total amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day, as calculated by the Ombudsman. Rather, in exercise of this court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order of the Ombudsman is modified to the effect that the Distribution Licensee shall pay compensation not to the tune of Rs.1,21,400/- as awarded but will pay a total amount of Rs.6,07,000/- to the consumer-respondent no.1 within a month from date, deducting any amount, if already paid pursuant to the impugned order of the Ombudsman."
Case Title: Israt Begam and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 374
The Calcutta High Court has directed the State authorities to pay ₹30 Lakh compensation for demolishing the structures which were the subject matter of a writ petition filed by the petitioner, despite Court's interim orders directing the respondents to stop such demolitions until the matter was heard on affidavits. Holding the authorities in contempt of the Court's orders, a single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya said that:"The dignity and majesty of a Court is lowered not only from the willful disobedience of its orders and directions, but also from an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. The alleged contemnors have lowered the dignity and majesty of this Court by willful disobedience of the order dated 13.12.2022 and by attempting to frustrate the order by demolishing the subject matter of the dispute."
Case Tile: Chairman, Arya Girls Senior Secondary School v. Director and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 53
In a ruling that vindicates a terminated probationer battling civil and criminal proceedings by a private aided school for 26 years, the Delhi High Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs.
Justice Jyoti Singh upheld and partly modified the Order of Delhi School Tribunal, quashing the dismissal order of the School Authorities due to not adhering to the relevant statutory requirements.
The School had failed to conduct an inquiry before termination on allegation of serious Misconduct and did not seek prior permission of the DoE, which is mandatory under Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
The probationer was terminated for allegedly forged and fabricated school certificates and graduation degree.
Case Title: TARUN PREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 380
The Delhi High Court has granted compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to a victim of Connaught Place shootout which took place on 31st March 1997. The man was grievously injured and continued to carry shrapnel in his body.
The Court observed that the injury caused due to the state action where the police officials were convicted of criminal offences needs to be considered at "higher standard" as compared to ordinary cases of negligence and inaction.
Justice Pratibha M Singh clarified that the order was being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the incident was not an ordinary incident.
Title: M/S BANK OF BARODA & ANR vs MAHESH GUPTA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1163
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of compensation of over Rs 18 Lakh in favour of the kin of a man, who died as a result of the injuries suffered due to falling of a signboard on his head in 2011.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in the ruling considered the question regarding applicability of the defence of vis major or act of God and principle of res ipsa loquitur.
The court said the defence of act of God to ward off strict liability would not be available to the bank "since the hazard presented by a signboard coming off the facade of the building was a foreseeable event given the fact that Delhi experiences high-velocity winds, in May, each year".
Case Title: - Krishan Singh and another v. State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 1
Underscoring that the Right To Property is a Constitutional Right that has been acknowledged to be akin to a fundamental right and a basic human right, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the J&K Government to pay 10 Lakh as compensation to the petitioners in a case of illegal deprivation of land.
Ordering thus, the Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani further stressed that no one can be deprived of his property without following the procedure prescribed in law and payment of adequate compensation.
Case Title: Villagers Of Kalni Bagh Baramulla Vs Ut of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 3
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the State cannot be permitted to acquire private lands without paying full compensation to affected people for a very long period of time. While coming down heavily upon the lackadaisical behaviour of the State, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
Also Read - BREAKING| Don't Treat P&H HC Judgment Allowing Minor Muslim Girl To Marry As Precedent, Says Supreme Court
"It is an alarming situation that State is acquiring private land without payment of full compensation. This kind of action or omission on the part of the State authorities is not acceptable and cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period. We deprecate such practice and expect that the State would henceforth take all possible measures to ensure passing of an award within a reasonable time and payment of fair compensation to the persons interested where ever the land is acquired."
Case Title : Bhat Ab. Urban Bin I Aftaf & Ors. V UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 49
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the Board of Professional Entrance Examination to grant Rs. 5 lakh compensation to a medical aspirant, who was denied a seat in NEET-MDS 2021, despite being eligible under the CDP/JKPM (Children of Defence Personal/ Military Forces) category.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further directed BOPEE to keep one seat of MDS in the next session (2022) for the petitioner, without making it part of selection or admission.
Case Title: UT of J&K Vs Mohammad Latief Magrey &Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 54
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today directed the UT administration to allow the family of Amir Magrey, the fourth person killed in Hyderpora Encounter, to perform Fatiha Khawani (religious rituals/prayers after burial) at his grave.
The bench observed "the said right of burial and performance of last religious rituals of deceased available to the family members could not have been denied."
16. Electrocution: High Court Orders J&K Admin To Pay Over Rs 24 Lakh Compensation To Victim's Family
Case Title: Saleema Begum & Ors Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 162
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to pay over Rs 24 lakh as compensation to the family of a person who died due to electrocution after an 11,000 KV line fell on his head in north Kashmir's Uri area in July 2013.
"The respondents being the managers of the electric supply of the area were duty bound in law to ensure that the requisite measures are in place to prevent the leakage, loss of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road to endanger the lives of the people," said the court.
Case Title : Mst Mala Begum Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 227
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while awarding Rs 24 Lakh to a woman left crippled because of a High Voltage electric shock observed that authorities manning dangerous commodities like electricity have an extra duty to take all measures to prevent any mishap.
"It is their statutory duty to ensure that no mishap takes place on account of lack of proper maintenance of these installations. The fact that the wooden cross of HT Frame of the transmission line had broken which resulted in sagging of conductor to a lower level shows that the field officials of the respondent Department have failed in their duty to check and supervise the transmission line", the court maintained.
Case Title : Aatif Irshad Kumar Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court awarded compensation of Rs 30.2 lakhs to a five-year-old boy disabled for life by 33,000 KV HT line laid by the Power Development Department (PDD). The liability for negligence cast upon the functionaries of the State would lie within the parameters of "strict liability" under law of Torts, the Court reiterated.
19. Karnataka High Court Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Death Of 2-Yr-Old In Stray Dog Attack
Case Title: YUSUB S/O MOHAMUSAB SANADI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO. 110352 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is a statutory obligation which has been imposed upon the local municipal authorities to safeguard the human beings cohabitating within their jurisdiction, from the danger of any stray dogs and/or any attack by such stray dogs.
Case Title: SUPRITISHWAR DIVATE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 115362 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused who is arrested can normally not be handcuffed. It is only under "extreme circumstances", for instance where there is possibility of the accused/under trial prisoner escaping custody or causing harm to himself or causing harm to others, that handcuffing of an accused can be resorted to.
Case Title: NINGARAJU N v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S INDIA HOLIDAY (PVT) LTD.
Case No: COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2022 C/W COMPANY PETITION NO.26 OF 2008.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court has held that whenever any warrant is issued, whether bailable or non-bailable, the arresting officer is required to ascertain the identity and be satisfied that the person proposed to be arrested is the same person as against whom the warrant has been issued.
Case Title: G. Babu v. the District Collector & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
Madras High Court has ordered to pay compensation to the son of a deceased mother who was shot accidentally in a 'Shoot and Kill' stray dog hunt with the sanction of Eraiyur Panchayat.
A single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam has ordered the District Collector, Perambalur and the functionaries including the Eraiyur Panchayat President to pay Rs 5 laksh each as compensation to the petitioner son.
Case Title: K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
Observing that digitisation should lead to empowerment and not deprivation, the Madras High Court recently directed the Director of Medical Education and its Selection Committee to award a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to a student who failed to register himself for the NEET counselling process due to technical glitches and poor internet connectivity in his village, thereby losing admission prospects.
The Madurai Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the state had an obligation to compensate a student who was deprived of his entitlement due to "digital divide". The court also directed the Department to ensure that the selection procedure is conducted in such a way so that incidents like these do not occur in future.
Case Title: S.Bhanupriya v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh has ordered lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a young mother who was forced to undergo three surgeries due to delay on part of a government hospital to shift her to a better facility, consequently kept away from her newborn baby for nine months.
Since the hospital was a government hospital, the State was vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. Thus, the court directed the state to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Case Title: S.Pongulali v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently allowed a mother's plea to register a case for the offence of Murder against the police officials allegedly involved in the custodial death of her 22 year old son. It directed the CB-CID to alter the charge against the accused police officials and proceed against them for the offence of murder and file the final report within a period of eight weeks.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the Police has a responsibility to ensure that a citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life, except according to procedure established by law.
Case Title: Minor V Amrutha v. Council for Architecture and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh to a student for denying her admission to the Architecture course. Justice R Subramanian also observed that the conduct of the respondent was outrageous and inexplicable in that they had acted blatantly in violation of previous court orders.
27. Two Women Kept In Illegal Detention For 128 Days, Madras High Court Awards Rs 5L Compensation
Case Title: Manokaran v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court recently directed the State to pay Rs five lakh compensation each to two women who were unauthorisedly kept in preventive detention for more than four months.
"The sequence of events in the case on hand reveals beyond any doubt that it is a classic case of bureaucratic lethargy and slumber, which has played a lot in depriving the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," said the division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira.
Case Title: Thulasidass Adikesavan v. Inspector of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 514
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs one lakh compensation to the family of a 74-year-old man who has not been found since being taken to a government hospital in June 2020 for COVID-19 treatment.
The division bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the police to take effective steps to find the whereabouts of the missing person and continue with its investigation in the matter.
The court said Tamil Nadu government and Greater Chennai Corporation had done their best to fight the COVID war and no single officer could be blamed for the lapse
At the same time, the court agreed with the submission of the family that had the police registered the FIR in the first instance itself, police would have been able to trace Adikesavan.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
The Court ordered compensation of rupees ten lakhs to parents of a boy who died by falling into a drain during school hours while excreting. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed, "The students coming from rural background were used to defecate in the open. In spite of toilet being available in the school premises, the teacher allowed the students to go outside the school premises, to relieve themselves. As such, contributory negligence in preventing the death is the inference."
30. Orissa High Court Orders Compensation To Woman Who Got Pregnant Even After Undergoing Sterilization
Case Title: Shriya Chhanchan v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 107
The Orissa High Court ordered compensation to a woman who got pregnant even after undergoing sterilization process conducted by the State. While criticising the State for not following the proper procedures, a Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed,
"State not having itself followed the procedure to the letter cannot turn around and say that petitioner had omitted to act as per undertaking given by her, to report that she missed menstrual cycle after the operation. As aforesaid analysis of pleadings in paragraphs 4 and 6, respectively of the petition and counter, do not support this contention of State."
Case Title: Madhav Soren v. State of Odisha and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 127
The Orissa High Court ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the father of a 7-year-old daughter who died after a kitchen side wall within the school premises collapsed. The Single Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar observed that the death of the girl was totally unnecessary and avoidable and it would not have occurred if all the safety measures, that were instructed to be put in place by the State, had been strictly followed.
"...the negligence of the State authorities in using defective materials to construct a kitchen in the school premises has already been established during the enquiry. The death of the young child was totally unnecessary and avoidable. The responsibility for death definitely rests with the State. The death would not have occurred if all the safety measures, that were instructed to be put in place by the State, had been strictly followed", the Court noted.
Case Title: Jaladhar Jena v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 148
The High Court ordered Rs. 10 Lakhs compensation to the father of a boy who died in 2011 after receiving injuries while playing cricket in the school premises. While holding the school liable for contributory negligence, a Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha held, "Court is convinced there was contributory negligence on part of the school leading to loss of the young life. In the circumstances, following judgment dated 11th August, 2022 (supra) and order dated 30th September, 2021(supra), there will be direction upon opposite parties, jointly and severally, to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to petitioner within four weeks from date."
Case Title: Sambara Sabar v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 155
In an important judgment, the Orissa High Court directed the State Government to constitute an Advisory Board of health care experts to draw up a 'Comprehensive Action Plan' to address the issue of maternal deaths. It also ordered the Government to come up with a Scheme or Policy to address the need for providing redress including award of compensation for every avoidable maternal death and the fixing of responsibility in a time-bound manner.The above directions were issued by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman while deciding the case relating to death of a tribal lady, who died in 2015 at the time of delivery.
"In the present case, there has been an acute failure of the entire teams of doctors at each level of the health care system in Odisha to provide timely and adequate care and treatment to the deceased as pointed out by the EC. It shocks the judicial conscience that a poor tribal woman had been carrying a dead foetus for a week prior to her death with not one person in the health care system being able to provide her the needed care and treatment and which neglect resulted in her inevitable death. There has been a clear violation of the fundamental right to health of the deceased which constitutes an integral part of the right to life guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India", the Bench observed.
Case Title. : Noor Paul vs Union of India and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 69
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Look Out Circular (LOC), which prevents one from travelling abroad, must be supplied to the person at the time of being stopped at the airport and that the reasons should be communicated to the affected party. The Court further stated that the person must be given an opportunity of post-decisional hearing against the LOC.
Case Title: Ishiqa @ Yashika Vs State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 133
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam to pay compensation of Rs. 95 lakh to the petitioner, a minor girl who got electrocuted from a broken electric pole lying on the street with live electric wires attached to it, resulting in amputation of both arms.
Case Title: Madhu Saini and Others. v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to regularize the admissions of 16 medical aspirants who were admitted to a Dental College in Kota, without qualifying the NEET examination. It however granted Rs.10 Lakhs compensation to each such student, stating that the College had made a "false promise" assuring them a seat in MDS course.
The court also directed the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-Rajasthan University of Health Sciences to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials who had handed over degrees of the Petitioner-students, despite an order of the court to withhold the same.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur observed,
" The fact remains that the petitioners were admitted in the Course in the year 2017 and their three years in the College is sheer wastage of energy, time and money spent on their education by their parents... This Court, though cannot regularize the admissions which were granted to the petitioners, however, the petitioners need to be compensated by the respondent-College for the illegality committed by them while giving admission to the petitioners and further furnishing incorrect and false information to different authorities i.e. respondent-University and respondent-DCI."
Case title - Sanichar Kol v. The State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 33
The Jharkhand High Court directed the State's Director General of Police to take suitable steps to ensure that innocent persons, against whom there are no materials, are not harassed and their liberty is not infringed or curtailed at the whim of the investigating officers.
This direction came from the Bench of Justice Ananda Sen while awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to a tribal man as it found that he was made an accused in an Abetment of suicide case and was kept in custody for no fault on his part.
Case Title: "A" v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 86
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 10 lakhs compensation for a 'blind minor girl' who was subjected to gang-rape by her own family members, including brother and uncle. The Court has further directed the State Government to establish rehabilitation centre at the capital city of Ranchi to cater to the needs of victims of such heinous and brutal offences.
Case title - Rasheda Khatun and others v. State of Tripura and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 14
The Tripura High Court on Wednesday directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the family members of Jamal Hossain, who allegedly died due to custodial torture in police lockup.
The Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Satya Gopal Chattopadhyay ordered that the widow, children, and mother of the deceased shall be entitled to an equal share of the amount of compensation.
Case title - Court on its own motion v. The State of Tripura and others [WP(C) (PIL) No.25 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 39
The Tripura High court recently directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to a 28-year-old woman who was subjected to custodial torture in October 2021.
The bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay was dealing with a suo moto case instituted by the High Court on a news report regarding the custodial torture inflicted on one Priyashi Datta (Debnath).
41. Uttarakhand High Court Directs State To Pay ₹35 Lakh Compensation To Acid Attack Survivor
Case Title: Gulnaaz Khan v. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 47
The Uttarakhand High Court recently directed the State Government to pay a compensation amount of ₹35 Lakh to an acid attack survivor.
Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra said a sum of Rs. 35 Lakh would be just, proper and adequate compensation to the petitioner in addition to the amount already paid to her. The court also said she should be given some vocational training if she is willing to undertake.
