Tajinder Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) 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 - 997, 991 of 1984 and 35 of 1985 as they have arisen out of a common award of the motor accident claims tribunal, hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to 'the tribunal') feeling dissatisfied with the award of the tribunal, the claimants as well as general manager, c.amarjeet chaudhary, j.1. this judgment of mine will dispose of fao nos. 997, 991 of 1984 and 35 of 1985 as they have arisen out of a common award of the motor accident claims tribunal, hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to 'the tribunal') feeling dissatisfied with the award of the tribunal, the claimants as well as general manager, c.t.u., chandigarh have filed these appeals. for the purpose of order, the facts have been taken from fao no. 997 of 1984.2. one satwant kaur wife of baldev singh died in accident on 12.11.1982. satwant kaur deceased was travelling in bus no. pbq-4301 from chandigarh to jalandhar. when the bus reached near paniali kalan on ropar balachaur road, a cart was coming from the opposite direction which was over taken by bus no. ctu-3588 coming from the balachaur side. in the meantime, another bus no. chw-9057 came on the wrong side and in order to over take bus no. ctu-3588 struck against bus no. pbq-4301 as a result of which the accident occurred. satwant kaur received injuries and subsequently she succumbrd to her injuries. one tarlok singh who was travelling in bus no. chw-9057 also sustained injuries. the legal heirs of satwant kaur, deceased filed the claim petition. the tribunal awarded rs. 24,000/- as compensation. feeling dissatisfied with the award, the claimants filed fao no. 997 of 1984. tarlok singh had also filed the claim petition and was awarded rs. 11,050/- as compensation on account of injuries sustained by him. he too has filed fao no. 35 of 1985. the general manager, c.t.u. chandigarh has also filed f.a.o. no. 991 of 1984 challenging the award of tribunal vide which a sum of rs. 11,050/- was granted to tarlok singh.3. in f.a.o. no. 997 of 1984, the plea is that the deceased was earning rs. 300/- per month and after her death the claimants had to engage a servant for performing domestic work, therefore, the loss of rs. 200/- per month calculated by the tribunal is on the lower side. counsel argued that the tribunal erred in comparing the services of mother with paid servant. it ignored the fact that besides the salary, the claimants had to spend on board and lodging of the servant and no benefit has been given on this account.4. on consideration of the submission of the appellant's counsel and perusing the paper book, i am of the view that the loss suffered by the claimants on account of death of satwant kaur, has not been properly calculated. the deceased was 45 years of age. the tribunal should not have treated her at par the services of the mother with that of the servant. it has come in evidence that after the death of satwant kaur servant had been engaged for performing various duties in the house and was being paid salary. besides that, the family of the deceased is spending on the board and lodging of the servant.5. after overall consideration of the matter, i am of the view that of loss suffered by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased cannot be less than rs. 400/- per month for 10 years at least. calculated at this rate for a period of 10 years, the claimants are held entitled to rs. 48,000/-. they shall also be entitled to 12% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization. out of this amount, the amount already awarded is to be adjusted.6. coming to f.a.o. no. 35 of 1985 on a claim petition by tarlok singh, the motor accident claims tribunal, had awarded a sum of rs. 11,050/- to the claimant with 6% interest, the break up of this amount being that rs.4050/- were awarded on account of loss of earning for three months suffered by him for not attending to his hotel management, rs. 2,000/- on account of pain and agony and rs. 5,000/- on account of medical treatment from private doctor during the period of three months.7. the challenge to the award is that compensation for pain and suffering is too meagre. the other plea is that higher rate of interest should have been awarded.8. it has come in evidence that tarlok singh had received multiple injuries including fracture of left leg, the ribs of right side, right knee and right shoulder. dr. kuldip singh pw-5 while appearing in the witness-box and stated that tarlok singh had received the above mentioned injuries and he was advised rest for 1-1/2 months. i am of the view that taking into consideration the gravity of injuries the compensation awarded towards pain and agony cannot be said to be adequate. as such, the claimant is entitled to rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering, besides rs. 4050/- on account of loss of earning and rs. 5,000/- on account of medical treatment. in all, the claimant shall be entitled to rs. 19,050/-with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.9. as a result, fao no. 997 of 1984 and fao 35 of 1985 are allowed to the extent indicated above.10. f.a.o. no. 991 of 1984 filed by the general manager, c.t.u. chandigarh is hereby dismissed as no interference is called for. no costs.