LATA RAJENDRA KANKARIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 17-04-1997 passed by the III jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune by which her suit was dismissed. The case of the plaintiffs was as under:-

(2.) Rajendra Kankariya was the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and the father of other plaintiffs. He was travelling on a scooter on Bombay Pune road on 10-06-1994. Some jawans of Military fired shots from their guns as a result of which Rajendra died. This suit was, therefore, filed for compensation of Rs. Ten lacs from the respondents/defendants. It is further case of the plaintiff that after this incident some of the officers of the defendants/respondents approached her; they offered her condolence and paid Rs. 9,000/- by way of partial compensation with promise that they will be paid more compensation. The plaintiff No. 1, being a widow, relied upon their assurances, wrote letters, but no compensation at all came to be given. At the time of death, Rajendra was 28 years of age. He was serving in Bombay Manufacturing company and was drawing an amount of rs. 1,500/- per month, he was also doing part time job from which he was getting Rs. 1,000/ - per month. Before filing the suit, the plaintiffs gave a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, but no amends were made and hence this suit came to be filed.

(3.) Defendant No. 3 i. e. Commandant-in-Chief, southern command, filed written statement denying the knowledge about the incident dated 10-06-1994; denying about any agitations going on in Punjab i. e. Operation Blue Star; denying that deceased rajendra was travelling from Chinchwad to pune on that day and at that time and; also denying that Rajendra died by the bullet injuries; further denying that for want of knowledge whether the death of Rajendra was caused due to the negligence of defendants. Income of the Rajendra was also denied. In the specific case put forth by the defendant No. 3 in the written statement, they contended that the names of the Jawans, who fired at Rajendra, were not given by the plaintiffs, nor any particulars about regiments to which they belong. Then it was submitted that all the military persons including Jawans are bound by the rules and regulations and they must act or do their duties as per those rules and regulations laid down by the Union of India and even if it is accepted that there was some firing by some Jawans from Shikh regiments, that was beyond the scope of their employment. It was an unauthorised and illegal act, in breach of rules and regulations and without permission of the defendants and, therefore, the question of giving compensation to the plaintiffs could not arise.