MEGH SINGH Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mr. Megh Singh, claims compensation for death of his father mr. Dayal Singh in 1984 riots. He had earlier filed , which was disposed of vide order dated 5 th October, 2004 directing that the screening Committee set up by the respondent authorities will examine the case and decide the claim within four weeks. The Screening Committee has passed order dated 9th December, 2004 rejecting his claim, recording following reasons:- " The case was considered by Committee and observed that the case for giving of enhanced compensation is deficient in respect of following points: i) Initial compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was not received by the claimant. ii) Name of the deceased is not figured in the Ahuja Committee Report. iii) Death could not be confirmed by D. C. P. (Riot Cell ). Moreover the intimation of death given by the claimant on 28. 11. 84 at P. S. Mangolpuri could not be established. iv) Death Certificate was obtained on 26. 12. 84 and that was applied by one shri Ram Singh who is not related to the applicant. Sh. Megh Singh claimant appeared before the Committee and was heard. He could not give suitable/reasonable explanation about not receiving/applying for initial compensation given in 1984 and 1986 and not appeared before Ahuja Committee for inclusion of the name of the deceased in its report. The claimant also showed his inability about the place of death of the deceased and further informed the Committee that the deceased was his father and on the day of riots he had gone to Karol Bagh. But as per Police record no unclaimed body was found in the area of P. S. Karol bagh. The claimant at the time of riots was running a Coal Depot on the basis of License given by Food and civil Supplies Deptt. , Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi and can not be assumed that he was not aware of the relief provided by Govt. to 1984 riot victims from 1984 onwards. The claimant approached this deptt. only in 1996 by way of the present claim. He did not appeared (sic) before Jain commission or Ahuja Committed (sic) to tender his witness for the death of his father in the 1984 riots. Under the above stated circumstances the committee is of the opinion that case of the claimant is not fit to be recommended. Hence the claim is rejected. "

(2.) THE said reasons have been reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. At the time of hearing of this matter, the respondents were directed to produce original records. I have examined the original records.

(3.) THE averment/statement that late Mr. Dayal Singh's name did not figure in the Ahuja Committee report is factually incorrect. The file notings show that the name of the deceased Dayal Singh is mentioned in Ahuja Committee's report at serial No. 1445. This is clear from the note dated 3rd February, 2000 as well as subsequent notes, though earlier file notings indicate that the respondents were of the opinion that the name of the deceased was not mentioned in the Ahuja Committee report. It is apparent that the Screening Committee has proceeded on the basis of an incorrect assumption.