Jarnail Singh (Minor) Vs. Gurbax 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 law - 2. dis-satisfied with the award, the claimant has come up in appeal for the enhancement of compensation.amarjeet chaudhary, j.1. the motor accident claims tribunal ropar in a claim petition filed by jarnail singh minor through his mother nichhattar kaur claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 19.3.1984, awarded rs. 42,500/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization. the liability to pay compensation was joint and several.2. dis-satisfied with the award, the claimant has come up in appeal for the enhancement of compensation.3. the award of the tribunal has been impugned on the ground that the compensation awarded to the claimant is not commensurate with the injuries suffered by him. further, the appellant has been incapacitated for the rest of his life and would not be able to earn his livelihood and shall remain dependent upon others for his bread and butter.4. in brief, the facts of the case are that the claimant had received multiple injuries on both of his legs in a road accident on 19.3.1984. he was operated upon on 20.3.1984, 5.4.1984 and 24.4.1984. skin grafting of both his legs was done on these three occasions. as a result of injuries, he has been in capacitated for the rest of his life and is unable to lead a normal life. the claimant what to talk for running would not be able to walk even and cannot stand erect on account of the injuries. the movements of the claimant are restricted and even he is to be carried from one place to another. during treatment, the claimant was required to take high protein diet. he had to undergo three surgeries in the pgi chandigarh in the year 1991.5. during the pendency of the appeal, the claimant moved an application with a request for summoning record of the pgi. this court, on july 28, 1995 had directed the medical superintendent, nehru hospital, post graduate institute to produce the record pertaining to the claimant who was admitted on 29.4.1991 and discharged on 29.6.1991. in compliance with this court's order dated july 28, 1995, mr. hoshiar singh, an employee of the p.g.i. had produced the record.6. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case file and the record of the p.g.i.7. in this case the accident and the manner in which the claimant had received injuries is not in dispute. the sole question for determination of this court is regarding the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled for the injuries suffered by him.8. dr. c.p. sawhney, p.w.1, who had examined the claimant had found the following injuries on his person:-1. avulsion of the skin of right lower limb extending from middle of the thigh to lower 1/3rd of leg. the avulsion was circumferential.2. compound fracture of tibia right lower 1/3rd.3. skin of the left foot was completely avulsed both on dorsal and planter aspect.4. amputation of all toes of left foot.it has come in the statement of dr. sawhney that the claimant was operated upon on 20.3.1984, 5.4.1984 and 24.4.1984 and surgeries/operations were performed which were major in nature. it has come in the testimony of this doctor that on account of the injuries, the claimant has been rendered incapacitated to perform normal routine life. the claimant would not be able to run, normally walk what to speak of participating in the games.9. from the perusal of the record of the p.g.i. produced in this case, it is clear that the claimant had crush injury. three operations for repair of deformity of the claimant were performed. the claimant had remained in the pgi for a considerable period.10. this court had an occasion to look at the claimant and was distressed to see a young boy in a pitiable condition. he was brought to the court in cradle. he was even not able to squat on the floor. the whole human frame of the claimant has been shattered due to the injuries. his whole life has been ruined. the pain and suffering which the claimant must have undergone cannot be imagined. on account of deformity in the knee and also on account of amputation of all the toes of left foot, this court is of the view that the claimant would also require artificial limb which will also require replacement.11. keeping in view all the factors, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of rs. 1,50,000/- (rupees one lac and fifty thousand only). the amount of compensation of rs. 42,500/- already awarded to the claimant is to be adjusted against the enhanced compensation. the claimant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of petition till realization. the respondents, will be jointly and severally liable to make the payment.the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above with costs which are quantified at rs. 2,000/-.