B.D. Agarwal, J.
1. The writ petitioner's son Md. Tamijuddin @ Tammi @ Md. Tamijur Rahaman died in a police firing on 03.02.2000. The incident took place at a place known as Irong Thana Thongkhong. At the relevant time, the election for the Manipur State Assembly was in the process and the candidates and their supporters were on the street for campaign. On that day, at about 5.00 p.m., Md. Abdul Salam, the then sitting MLA, was on house to house campaign and his convoy had just reached the spot in front of the house of one Th. Ibotombi Singh, Pradhan of Maibam Village Gram Panchayat near Hamilton Bridge. At that point of time a group of supporters of the candidate belonging to Federal Party of Manipur (in brief 'MFP') also reached the same spot simultaneously. The deceased Tamijuddin @ Tammi was in the group of Manipur Federal Party and he was driving a jeep with other supporters. It may be mentioned here that the sitting MLA was provided with personal security by the Government. Apprehending attack by the supporters of MFP, the armed constables of the MLA fired gun shots upon the other group causing physical injuries upon 3 (three) persons. Amongst them Md. Tamijuddin succumbed to the bullet injuries.
2. To ascertain the cause of the accident, the Government instituted an Executive Enquiry. The enquiry was held by Shri K.K. Chhetry, the then District Magistrate, Thoubal District. Simultaneously, an FIR was lodged from the side of the victim which was registered as MI PS Case No. 11(2)2000 under Section 302/326/114/307/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act against Md. Abdul Salam, MLA and the police constables. It is not on record about the result of the FIR but a report of the O.C. Mayang Imphal PS dated 7.3.2000 has been submitted and marked as Annexure-A/7. However, full report of the District Magistrate dated 14.11.2000 has been submitted by the writ petitioner.
3. In both the magisterial report as well as the police report, it was confirmed that Tamijuddin died due to bullet firing. The above reports also indicate that the firing was resorted to on an apprehension that the supporters of MFP were likely to attack upon the MLA. In other words, firing was resorted upon suspicion and not to retort any actual attack. There was also no provocation from the side of the deceased person. It is true that before the Magisterial enquiry, the MLA and his escorting police constables claimed that there was an attack from the opposite group but there is no corroborative evidence in this regard. Their depositions appear to be hear-say one. Police constables have stated that they heard sound of two gun shots but the police investigating officer did not seize any weapon or empty cartridges to establish the fact that there was any firing from the supporters of MFP. On the other hand, as many as 9 (nine) rounds were fired by the armed constables of the MLA. Despite these findings, adverse to the police constables, the deceased family was not compensated by the Government. Hence, the writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate compensation to the next kin of the deceased.
4. I have heard oral arguments of Mr. R. Daniel, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. The State was represented by Shri S. Nepolean, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. I have also perused the documents submitted with the writ application, including the FIR, police report, PM report, enquiry reports, etc.
5. From the record, I find that no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In fact, no serious dispute was raised by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate regarding the incident as well as the fact of death of Tamijuddin in the police firing. Rather, these facts stand established from the Government documents, particularly the police report and the magisterial enquiry report. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also did not dispute the claim of the writ petitioner to get adequate compensation for the death of his son in police action. In fact, this legal issue is no longer res-integra. The hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively declared that pecuniary compensation can be awarded to remedy and redress the infringement of fundamental rights of the citizen by public servants. This view was initially taken in the case of Smt. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa : 1993CriLJ2899 equivalent to : 1993CriLJ2899 , The legal principle was further elaborated and re-stated in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal : 1997CriLJ743 . In this case, the Apex Court has further clarified that the State is vicariously liable for the acts of its servant.
6. Now the only question, which remains to be determined by me, is what should be the pecuniary compensation. Shri R. Daniel, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs should be awarded since the deceased was a driver by profession and earning a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the deceased was 25 years old and he was un-married. In support of his claim, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of Tamo Riba v. Union of India and Ors. WP (C) No. 258 of 2000, decided on 30.4.2001; Heo Rulho v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (2) GLT 501 : (2003) 3 GLR 502 and the case of Jagat Dhar Sarma v. State of Assam and Ors. 2002 (3) GLT 731.
7. On the other hand, Shri Nepolean, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that at best, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh can be awarded as per the ex-gratia policy of the Government. The learned Addl. GA also cited the judgment of the Apex Court given in the case of Potsangbam Ningol Thokchom (Smt.) and Anr. v. General Officer Commanding and Ors. : AIR1997SC3534 , the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Mahmud Ali v. Union of India and Ors. 2001 (3) GLT 542 and the case of Aheibam O.I. Devi v. State of Manipur and Ors. 1998 (4) GLT 380, wherein maximum amount of Rs. 1,5 lakhs was awarded.
8. In the case of D.K. Basu (supra), their lordships have held that the quantum of compensation will depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no straight jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. In view of this observation, the judgments cited by either party cannot be taken as the basis for ascertaining the compensation, which can be granted in the present case. However, with a view to maintain parity in the compensation and to avoid granting a grossly distorted compensation on either side, it would be just and proper to look at the precedence cited on behalf of the parties.
9. In the case of Heo Rulho (supra), a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was awarded for the death of a MBBS student. While enhancing ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 2, awarded by the Government, to Rs. 5 lakhs this Court observed that the deceased had a bright future being a MBBS student. In the case of Jagat Dhar Sarma (supra), compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs was awarded for killing a Junior Engineer in an unprovoked firing on the street by a police officer. I find from the judgment that Junior Engineer's proved income was Rs. 46,704 per annum which was about to rise to Rs. 72,000 in near future. Hence, these two decisions, cited on behalf of the writ petitioner cannot be considered as comparable authorities. In the case at hand, the deceased did not have any proved income and there was no scope of quantum jump of his income. The case of Heo Rulho (supra) is also distinguishable on facts. In that case, a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was awarded for killing a grown up girl of 18 years in presence of her parents. In the said case, army personnel of J&K; Rifles barged in the house of the deceased and enquired about the availability of a young girl in the house. When the inmates of the house produced their daughter/sister before the armed personnel, she was taken in a room, for obscure reasons, and shot her dead. The brutality committed upon a young girl in presence of her parent and brothers and the mental trauma suffered by the family members can not be explained in words nor can be measured in terms of money. Hence, this cited case also can not be compared with the facts of the present case.
10. In the other set of judgments cited on behalf of the State, I find that the Gauhati High Court has awarded Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the writ petitioner for the death of a young boy in the case of Mahmud Ali (supra). An identical amount was granted in the case of Aheibam O.I. Devi (supra). In the latter case, the deceased was a driver by profession and was also earning a sum Rs. 3,000 per annum, as in the case under consideration. Similarly, in the case of Potsangbam Ningol Thokchom (Smt.) (supra), the hon'ble Supreme Court approved only Rs. 1.25 lakh each, for the death of two children of the writ petitioners.
11. Again I find that in the case of Smt. Kamini Bala Talukdar v. State of Assam and Ors. 1997 (1) GLT 333, this High Court had awarded only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for the death of 27 years old son of the writ petitioner. In yet another case of Moheela Moran and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors. 2000 (2) GLT 504, Gauhati High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation for the death of the petitioner's 19 years old son, who was also incidentally a student leader.
12. From the survey of various decisions of the Gauhati High Court as well as from the Apex Court, it becomes crystal clear that there is no uniformity in assessing the amount of compensation. Hence, it is always better for the victims to stake their claims under private law by way of instituting civil suits for damages. In other words, remedy made available to the writ petitioners in public law cannot be equated with private law complaints, wherein the claimants can establish their pecuniary damages by way of adducing evidence. I am also of the opinion that High Courts, sitting in writ jurisdiction, cannot substitute itself or become a supplant to regular civil courts of original jurisdiction to assess the pecuniary loss of the writ petitioner(s).
13. In the present writ application, the petitioner himself has admitted that the Government of Manipur has formulated a scheme for payment of ex-gratia compensation to Government servants, civilians, security forces, etc. in the event of death or injuries in extremist related actions. The scheme, prepared in the year 1998, provided an amount of Rs. 1 lakh for the death of a civilian by security forces or extremists. Hence, I reserve my opinion whether this Court would be justified to award higher amount of compensation without declaring the scheme of the Government, fixing the amount of ex-gratia, as illegal or arbitrary. However, no such plea was taken on behalf of the respondents and as such, I am neither deciding this issue nor adhering to the ex-gratia amounts fixed under the Scheme.
14. Going by the various decisions of this Court as well as from the Apex Court, I hold that granting of pecuniary compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the writ petitioner would be just and proper in the present case. While awarding this amount I have taken into consideration the fact that the deceased had no fixed or proved income. Besides this, the deceased was a bachelor and that the writ petitioner is more than 60 years old person. Even if the guidelines, given in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for determination of compensation in case of unnatural death in vehicular accidents, is taken the basis for assessing the compensation under public law, the writ petitioner will not be entitled to compensation higher than Rs. 2.5 lakh.
15. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction that the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs (Rs. Two lakhs fifty thousand only). Since the deceased was killed by police constable, the State of Manipur is liable to satisfy the award. It is further directed that entire compensation should be paid within a period of two months from today. I also find from the record that a sum of Rs. 50,000 has already been paid to the petitioner by virtue of interim order dated 14.9.2000 passed by this court. Hence, this amount shall be deducted from the total compensation. If the compensation amount is not paid within two months, it shall carry interest @ 6 % per annum from today.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.