SITA RANI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE demand for justice in the present case is by a victim of crisis. A poor widow within her early 20s has knocked the door of this Court through a public spirited lawyer to seek compensation, as far as money can, for the death of her driver-husband on 6-12-83 in a motor accident at Janimatihdonge Gaon under Sibsagar Police Station. The ignorance of the widow stood in her way to file a case either before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Having come in contact with the aforesaid lawyer, she has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek just compensation for the death of her husband. The widow has two daughters also aged about 7 and 4 years by now to look after and to bring them up. Her poverty is, however, standing in the way. Shri Birmiwal has implored us to cast away the shackles of rigidity and to adopt a human and humane approach and to assist the poor widow. He contends that judicial activism must imbibe us and we should forge new remedy and fashion new strategy to meet the challenge thrown by the present case.

(2.) IF one were to approach the finer aspects of human rights unfolded by this case in the traditional mould it would have been enough to say that the present proceeding is not appropriate to do anything in the matter as the petitioner should have either approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act which is the contention advanced by Shri Chaliha. The delay in approach to this Court could have also been used against the petitioner to turn down her, prayer for just compensation. Having known about the tragedy which has be fallen the widow we do not think if we would be discharging our constitutional role properly if we were to send back the petitioner empty-handed which would have compelled the petitioner to live a life of destitute or to lead a life of immorality if for no other reason than to bring up the two innocent daughters, we have said so because we find on record a letter of the petitioner addressed to the Chief Justice in which it has been stated that she may not be compelled to go astray to protect her blood. We have, therefore, to protect the dignity of the petitioner which is one of the founding pillars of our Constitution. The Preamble of our Constitution requires protection of the dignity of an individual and also promotion of social justice. New situations throw new challenges and a court alive to the reality of the situation has to adopt a creative and innovative attitude which is in consonance with human rights.

(3.) LET us first see whether the State is at all liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss of her husband. To answer this question, let the broad facts be noted. Deceased Ramesh Prasad was a driver by profession. At the relevant time he was driving motor vehicle No. MLS 5846. He was then aged about 28 years. This vehicle was requisitioned on 6-12-83 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup and was detailed to escort a NSA detenu, the present Home Minister, Government of Assam. In the vehicle, there were four police personnel also. It met with an accident on 6-12-83. In the accident four police personnel and the petitioner's husband met their death at the spot. These broad facts are not denied. The question is whether the State of Assam is under any legal obligation to compensate the petitioner for the death of her husband. The contention of Shri Birmiwal is that as the vehicle had been requisitioned on 5 12-83, the petitioner's husband became an employee of the State and as such he was entitled to such compensation as has been paid to the police personnel who had also met their end in the accident. To fortify this submission, we have been referred to Notification No. TMV 294/484/289 dated 18-11-85 which has laid down the amount of compensation per day to be paid in connection with requisition of motor vehicles under the provisions of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968. This Notification, apart from mentioning the compensation to be paid to the owner of the vehicle, has also stated that each driver shall be paid "daily wage" of Rs. 20/- per day. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 it has been stated in para 7 that the requisitioning authority while requisitioning the private vehicles is required to bear the expenses of the vehicle; and the employees who come alongwith the vehicle are paid "daily wages" during the period. This would show that for the period during which a vehicle is under requisition the driver becomes an employee of the State. As such the driver or his heir is entitled to as much of compensation as is paid to other Government employees. We are, therefore, satisfied that the State is, in a case of the present nature, under a legal obligation to pay compensation to the dependants of a driver if he were to meet his end in an accident while driving the vehicle for the purpose for which it was requisitioned and the Workmen's Compensation Act comes into force as the accident would be arising out or and in course of the employment.