Ram Murti and ors. Vs. Tarlochan Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with laworderj.v. gupta, c.j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 10 -7-1986 whereby the compensation allowed by the tribunal in an accident case was enhanced from rs. 10,000/- to rs. 25,000/-.2. on 9-5-80 at 7.00 p. m., there was head on collusion between truck owned by tirlochan singh and driven by krishan lal which was insured with the new india assurance company and scooter owned and driven by rajinder singh, aged 25 years. rajinder singh died at the spot he was unmarried his parents, brother and sister filed claim before the motor accident claims tribunal for rs. 1,50,000/-, when was contested on behalf of the respondents. the learned tribunal found that the driver of the truck was negligent. as regard entitlement of compensation, it came to the conclusion that the father of the deceased was managing director of the co-operative bank, getting salary of rs. 2,000/- per month which was self sufficient for him, however, the father had staled that the deceased sen used to pay a considerable part of his pay to his mother. from this, the tribunal inferred that the son might have been paving rs. 100/ per month to his mother. on that basis the learned tribunal allowed compensation of rs. 10,000/- payable to the mother alone.3. in appeal the learned single judge found that keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case he thought it just and proper that the mother should get rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of the death of her unmarried son. consequently, it was ordered that smt. ram murti, mother of the deceased would be entitled to rs. 25,000/- alongwith 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation.4. learned counsel for the claimant appellants submitted that a sum of rs. 25,000/- has been allowed by way of compensation arbitrarily. according to the learned counsel the deceased was earning rs. 800/- per month and was aged 25 years and, therefore a suitable multiplier should have been used. in support of his contention, he referred to bhagwant kaur and anr. v. uttam chand, 1985 a.c.j. 713, arjan singh and anr. v. mitter paul khanna & co., 1989(1) a.c.j. 487, surjit kaur v. darshan singh, 1989(1) a.c.j. 335, kanta kuthiala and anr. v. haryana roadways though its general manager, (1989-1) 95 p.l.r. 197, and bimla devi aggarwal v. ganda singh, (1989-1) a.c.j. 481. on the other hand learned counsel for the respondents cited full bench judgment of this court reported as smt. bimla devi etc. v. national insurance company, (1989-1) 94 p.l.r. 301 to contend that there was no evidence led that the deceased was rendering any service to the parents. there may be no chances of his doing so in the near future. it is all in the realm of conjectures. there are no peculiar circumstance justifying ft higher amount of compensation. in the said full bench judgment, a sum of rs. 15,000/ was awarded as compensation to the claimants.5. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar we do not find any justification for interference in the impugned order in letters patent appeal. the amount was enhanced by the learned single judge from rs. 10,000/- to 25,000/- keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case to be just and proper.6. consequently the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

J.V. Gupta, C.J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10 -7-1986 whereby the compensation allowed by the Tribunal in an accident case was enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.

2. On 9-5-80 at 7.00 p. m., there was head on collusion between truck owned by Tirlochan Singh and driven by Krishan Lal which was insured with the New India Assurance Company and scooter owned and driven by Rajinder Singh, aged 25 years. Rajinder Singh died at the spot He was unmarried His parents, brother and sister filed claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for Rs. 1,50,000/-, when was contested on behalf of the respondents. The learned Tribunal found that the driver of the truck was negligent. As regard entitlement of compensation, it came to the conclusion that the father of the deceased was Managing Director of the Co-operative Bank, getting salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month which was self sufficient for him, However, the father had staled that the deceased sen used to pay a considerable part of his pay to his mother. From this, the Tribunal inferred that the son might have been paving Rs. 100/ per month to his mother. On that basis the learned Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the mother alone.

3. In appeal the learned Single Judge found that keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case he thought it just and proper that the mother should get Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of the death of her unmarried son. Consequently, it was ordered that Smt. Ram Murti, mother of the deceased would be entitled to Rs. 25,000/- alongwith 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant appellants submitted that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been allowed by way of Compensation arbitrarily. According to the learned counsel the deceased was earning Rs. 800/- per month and was aged 25 years and, therefore a suitable multiplier should have been used. In support of his contention, he referred to Bhagwant Kaur and Anr. v. Uttam Chand, 1985 A.C.J. 713, Arjan Singh and Anr. v. Mitter Paul Khanna & Co., 1989(1) A.C.J. 487, Surjit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, 1989(1) A.C.J. 335, Kanta Kuthiala and Anr. v. Haryana Roadways though its General Manager, (1989-1) 95 P.L.R. 197, and Bimla Devi Aggarwal v. Ganda Singh, (1989-1) A.C.J. 481. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents cited Full Bench judgment of this court reported as Smt. Bimla Devi etc. v. National Insurance Company, (1989-1) 94 P.L.R. 301 to contend that there was no evidence led that the deceased was rendering any service to the parents. There may be no chances of his doing so in the near future. It is all in the realm of conjectures. There are no peculiar circumstance justifying ft higher amount of compensation. In the said full bench judgment, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ was awarded as compensation to the claimants.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar we do not find any justification for interference in the impugned order in Letters Patent Appeal. The amount was enhanced by the learned Single Judge from Rs. 10,000/- to 25,000/- keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case to be just and proper.

6. Consequently the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.