SEEMA GANESH UIKEY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is widow of Ganesh Uikey, who has filed this petition seeking compensation for the death of her husband who died in a fatal accident in the compound in the office of the Collector, Nagpur, i. e. respondent No. 2 being crushed under the tree, for herself and on behalf of her children and mother-in law.

(2.) On the fateful day, i. e. 6-8-2002 the petitioner's husband Ganesh ramdas Uikey, Police Constable Buckle No. 777, who was at the relevant time deputed 'by Police Department as a bodyguard of Shri Vilasraoji Muttemwar, the then Member of Parliament, happened to visit the office of the Collector at about 3.30 P. M. after completing his duty and fell victim to a tamarind tree in the compound of the office of the Collector which got uprooted and collapsed and crushed him under it. A Toyota Qualis motor car also got damaged with its driver getting trapped into it and one Advocate Shastri had a lucky escape as the tree fell moments after he had alighted from his vehicle and had gone into a nearby building. People rescued the driver of the motor car but the petitioner's husband died on the spot. The incident attracted people including shri Narayan Chitnavis, a former Public Prosecutor and an Advocate who also became victim of another tree (which also came crushing down) along with other persons who were injured. So far as the Advocate Chitnavis was concerned, he was rushed to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries at about 6.30 P. M.

(3.) The widow of Mr. Narayan Chitnavis, Advocate filed a petition in this court and this Court in the case of (Smt. Vandana Narayanrao Chitnavis v. State of Maharashtra and others) , Writ Petition No. 4508/02, decided on 6-2-2004 reported in 2004 B. C. I. (N. B. ) 294 found the respondents liable to compensate the petitioner and awarded compensation by directing the respondent State to pay a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipts of the order and the petition came to be disposed of with no order as to costs. The State challenged the decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S. L. P. (C) No. 11553/04 decided on 19-7-2004. The Supreme Court dismissed the S. L. P. in limine. The petitioner, therefore, claims that she is entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/ - as at the relevant time her husband was working as a Police Constable drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 7000/-, was 38 years of age and considering his age of retirement as 58 years he had 20 years to go and if future prospects are also taken into consideration he would have received much higher salary with due increments on account of promotions and other retrial benefits like gratuity and provident fund, in addition to compensation on other counts which are commonly accepted in case of fatal accidents like funeral expenses, loss of consortium and estate.