Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Kanu Miah v. Union Of India And Others

Kanu Miah v. Union Of India And Others

(High Court Of Tripura)

WP(C)No.863 of 2020 | 19-07-2022

1. Heard Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asst. S.G. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior G.A. assisted by Ms. S. Nag, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4, 5 and 6.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a 50% disabled person who was injured due to the indiscriminate firing of the BSF Jawans on the evening of 06.06.2014 at South Ramnagar, West Tripura. In this incident the petitioner’s father Ismail Miah succumbed death on the spot and the petitioner was seriously injured. He was referred outside the State from AGMC & GBP Hospital and admitted in Fortis Hospital, Kolkata. Due to the said incident, the petitioner’s both leg are shortening to 2.5 inch. The District Disability Board issued a certificate of 50% locomoto disability in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was an auto driver and he used to earn Rs.10,000 per month. Since 2014, till today he is under treatment of Orthopedics. For the purpose of livelihood, he is entitled to get compensation. He has submitted a prayer before the respondent No.5 praying for compensation but till today, the respondent No.5 did not reply or have not taken any step for his compensation. It is also admitted by him that government has provided several compensation towards his medical aid. Further, the petitioner approached this court seeking compensation for his disability and for loss of his income.

3. Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ram Kishore versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi [judgment dated 18.07.2007] and a judgment of the Madras High Court in Jothi Lakshmi versus Union of India and Another [judgment dated 09.11.2009 in WP No.9909 of 2004] in support of the contention that the writ petition is maintainable.

4. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit and contended that the petitioner has demanded further compensation and prayed to dismiss the petitioner’s case.

5. Prima facie this court is not convinced since this court does not have the original file to appreciate the disability certificate and examine the witnesses, the source of income and the money he could not earn due to his disability. Though the petitioner has attempted to categorically demonstrate before this court that he had suffered injuries and was paid compensation. Hence, this court is of the opinion that all these factors cannot be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy to the petitioner’s claim lies somewhere else.

6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondents with all information and file the related documents in support of the claim and on receipt of such representation the respondents concerned shall examine the matter and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Advocate List

  • Ms. S. Debgupta, Adv.

  • Mr. P.K. Dhar, Sr. G.A. Mr. B. Majumder, Asst. S.G. Ms. S. Nag, Adv.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/TriHC/2022/152
Head Note

Writ Petition — Compensation — Right to — Petitioner, a 50% disabled person injured due to indiscriminate firing on protestors by BSF jawans, seeking compensation — Whether writ petition maintainable to adjudicate such claim for compensation and examine the disability certificate, source of income and the amount of money the petitioner could not earn due to his disability — Held, such claim for compensation lies outside the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution and, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the concerned respondents by filing a representation, on receipt of which, the concerned respondents shall examine the matter and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation — [2016] 2 GauLT 306 (HC)