United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Swaran Singh and anr. - 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 law - 60,000/-clearly warrants no reduction.s.s. sodhi, j.1. the award of rs. 60,000/- as compensation to the claimant swaran singh, who sustained serious injuries when he was run over by a truck resulting in amputation of his right arm, warrants no interference in appeal.2. according to the claimant, on april 28, 1982 at about 9 a.m. he was walking on his correct side of the road near the railway crossing of dhanowali in jalandhar cantonment when the truck puq-4665 came from behind and knocked him down a consequence of which his right arm was crushed and he was rendered unconscious. the truck driver-darshan singh was said to have caused this accident on account of his rash and negligent driving. the respondents denied that any accident had been caused by the truck puq-4665. the plea of the respondent no. 2 satnam singh-the owner of the truck-being that on the day of the accident, the truck was in fact out of punjab.3. in support of his case, the claimant-swaran singh, besides appearing in the witness box himself also examined aw 2 chattar singh who claimed to have witnessed this accident. both these persons deposed that the claimant was on his correct side of the road when the truck being driven at very fast speed came from behind and hit into him as a result of which his right arm was crushed and had later to be amputated. the only evidence forthcoming from the side of the respondent is the statement of the truck owner rw 1 satnam singh to the effect that his truck had not met with any such accident.4. a straight-forward and consistent account of the occurrence was given by both the claimant-swaran singh and aw 2 chattar singh. no reason or motive was even suggested to them for either of them to seek to falsely implicate the truck-driver and owner of the truck in this case. it is pertinent to note that though the plea had been taken in the written statement that the truck was out of punjab on the day of the accident, no attempt was made to seek to establish this by bringing any evidence on record in this behalf. indeed, rw 1-satnam singh, the truck-owner even withheld the log-book of the truck and there is no plausible explanation forthcoming to account for this.5. mr. l.m. suri, counsel for the appellants sought to make capital out the fact that the evidence on record did not establish that any first information report regarding this accident had been lodged with the police or any case registered. further, that the injured claimant had not been taken to the civil hospital after the accident.6. the lodging of the first information report is not an essential pre-requisite for claiming compensation for loss of injury arising from a motor accident. each case has, in this behalf, to be seen on its own facts and circumstances. in the present case, the evidence shows that the claimant fell unconscious soon-after the accident and was then removed to the hospital. further, it is the testimony of his employer, aw 4-inder mohan aggarwal that a written request had been sent by him to police station (sadar) jalandhar for the registration of case against the driver of the truck through a messenger and that the despatch of this letter was duly entered in their register at serial no. 356 of april, 28, 1982. counsel could suggest no reason to doubt his testimony.7. as regards the claimant not being taken to the civil hospital after the accident, the explanation for this is provided in the testimony of aw 2, chattar singh who deposed that they had not taken him to this hospital as they were apprehensive that he would not be given adequate treatment.8. taking thus an over-all view of the material on record, no exception can be taken to the finding of the tribunal that the accident here had been caused by the truck puq-4665 and had occurred due to its rash and negligent driving.9. the amount awarded as compensation, namely; rs. 60,000/-clearly warrants no reduction. as mentioned earlier, the injuries suffered by the claimant included amputation of his right arm. evidence has come to the effect that he was employed as a clerk at a salary of rs. 600/- per month. aw 4 inder mohan aggarwal, his employer, deposed that now on account of his disability, they had to dispense his services as he was no longer capable of carrying out his duties. the earning capacity of the claimant has undoubtedly been impaired by the loss of his right arm. such is the nature of this disability that the claimant would have to suffer from it in his daily every day living too. besides this, there is the pain and suffering that he had to undergo and the long period of hospitalization that it entailed. considering, therefore, all that the claimant has had to undergo, on account of his injuries and the serious nature of the disability that he now has to live with for the rest of his life, the award of rs. 60,000/- as compensation can, by no means, be branded as unwarranted or unjustified.10. this appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. counsel fee rs. 500/-.