Sh. Surinder Mohan and ors. Vs. Punjab State Through the Secretary, Transport, Government Punjab 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 laworderk.p. bhandari, j.1. this is an appeal against the award of the motor claim's accident tribunal, amritsar. the tribunal assessed the compensation amounting to rs. 32 000/-. the appellant aggrieved against the award of the tribunal has come up in appeal to this court.2. the appellant moved an application for amendment of the claim petition under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure. after going through the reply of the respondents and hearing the arguments of both the counsel, i allowed the amendment vide my order dated 10-8- 1990 after the amendment was allowed, mr. rajesh mahajan, advocate for the applicants sated that he does not want to produce any additional evidence. he wants to rely only on the evidence on record. mr. p. s. thaira, advocate for the respondents alto stated vide his statement dated 10-8-1990 before the court that he does not want to produce any evidence in rebuttal.3. the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus no p.ug-7386 driven by non chand driver, respondent no. 3. mrs. amarjit wife of surinder mohan claimant was travelling from dinanagar to amritsar by bus no pug 7386 on 9-7-l980 at about 9 00 a m. as a result of this accident, mrs. amarjit died instantaneously. the respondents have not challenged the findings of the tribunal regarding the cause of accident. 1 have gone through the evidence on record and i am of the opinion that the accident has been caused due to rush and negligent driving of bus no. pug-7336.4. in the claim petition, it was claimed that the annual income of the deceased was rs. 6,000/-. the tribunal expressed the view that there was some exaggeration in figures because no account books were produced the tribunal came to the conclusion that her annual income would be about rs. 3000/-. after allowing 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, the tribunel decided that the dependency must be rs. 2,000/- per year. the tribunal allowed a multiplier of sixteen.5. the claimants in support of their case produced k. r. gupta, aw. 4, who has stated that the deceased had independent income account of raju sales corporation . the appellant surinder mohan had also produced bills exs' a. 5 to a 32. in order to show that there was independent business of m/s raju sales corporation he further deposed that the deceased was the proprietor of the firm. this witness has also proved the specimen signatures of the deceased on the original application for opening the account in the bank. the respondents have not cross-examined k. r. gupta, a w 4 to dispute the income of the deceased. they did not challenge the correctness of the bills exs a. 5 to a. 31. the tribunal was not justified in rejecting this evidence the deceased was a young lady. at the relevant time, even a labourer got wages of rs. 25/-per day. there is no justification to disbelieve, the stand of the claimants that the monthly income of the deceased, from independent business was rs. 500/-. in this view of the matter, i set asdic the finding of the tribunal. deter mining the income of the deceased, i am of the opinion that the deceased had annual income of rs. 6.000/- the deceased must have spent 1/3 of the income for her personal expenses. in this way, the annual dependency of the deceased was rs. 4,000/-. i concur with the tribunal in so far as he has applied the multiplier of sixteen in this case so the appellants are entitled to compensation amount to rs. 64,000/-. the appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application.6. in view of the above, the appeal is accepted with costs to the extent indicated above.

Judgment:
ORDER

K.P. Bhandari, J.

1. This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Claim's Accident Tribunal, Amritsar. The Tribunal assessed the compensation amounting to Rs. 32 000/-. The appellant aggrieved against the award of the Tribunal has come up in appeal to this Court.

2. The appellant moved an application for amendment of the claim petition under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After going through the reply of the respondents and hearing the arguments of both the counsel, I allowed the amendment vide my order dated 10-8- 1990 After the amendment was allowed, Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for the applicants sated that he does not want to produce any additional evidence. He wants to rely only on the evidence on record. Mr. P. S. Thaira, Advocate for the respondents alto stated vide his statement dated 10-8-1990 before the Court that he does not want to produce any evidence in rebuttal.

3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No P.UG-7386 driven by Non Chand Driver, respondent No. 3. Mrs. Amarjit wife of Surinder Mohan claimant was travelling from Dinanagar to Amritsar by bus No PUG 7386 on 9-7-l980 at about 9 00 A M. As a result of this accident, Mrs. Amarjit died instantaneously. The respondents have not challenged the findings of the Tribunal regarding the cause of accident. 1 have gone through the evidence on record and I am of the opinion that the accident has been caused due to rush and negligent driving of bus No. PUG-7336.

4. In the claim petition, it was claimed that the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/-. The Tribunal expressed the view that there was some exaggeration in figures because no account books were produced The Tribunal came to the conclusion that her annual income would be about Rs. 3000/-. After allowing 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunel decided that the dependency must be Rs. 2,000/- per year. The Tribunal allowed a multiplier of sixteen.

5. The claimants in support of their case produced K. R. Gupta, AW. 4, who has stated that the deceased had independent income account of Raju Sales Corporation . The appellant Surinder Mohan had also produced bills Exs' A. 5 to A 32. in order to show that there was independent business of M/s Raju Sales Corporation He further deposed that the deceased was the proprietor of the firm. This witness has also proved the specimen signatures of the deceased on the original application for opening the account in the bank. The respondents have not cross-examined K. R. Gupta, A W 4 to dispute the income of the deceased. They did not challenge the correctness of the bills Exs A. 5 to A. 31. The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting this evidence The deceased was a young lady. At the relevant time, even a labourer got wages of Rs. 25/-per day. There is no justification to disbelieve, the stand of the claimants that the monthly income of the deceased, from independent business was Rs. 500/-. In this view of the matter, I set asdic the finding of the Tribunal. Deter mining the income of the deceased, I am of the opinion that the deceased had annual income of Rs. 6.000/- The deceased must have spent 1/3 of the income for her personal expenses. In this way, the annual dependency of the deceased was Rs. 4,000/-. I concur with the Tribunal in so far as he has applied the multiplier of sixteen in this case so the appellants are entitled to compensation amount to Rs. 64,000/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application.

6. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted with costs to the extent indicated above.