Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
J&K; High Court Bar Association vs State Of Jk And Others. on 12 February, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjeev Kumar
Serial no.18
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
CMP No.9900004/2016
Date of order: 12.02.2018
J&K High Court Bar Association v. State of JK and others.
Coram:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE.
Appearance:
For the appellant(s) : Mr Mian Tufail, Advocate, vice
Mr M. A. Qayoom, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr B. A. Dar, Sr AAG.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
01. This application was filed by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association on behalf of a victim of acid violence seeking disbursement of payment incurred on medical treatment required to be undertaken by her after passing of order dated 29th April, 2015, in the main matter. The treatment was necessitated on account of non-availability of Cornea Transplantation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In this regard, certificate dated 5th June, 2015 was placed on record. Even otherwise, the respondents have not disputed that there is no facility of Cornea Transplanation available in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The victim was for this purpose taken all the way to Chenai, where she has undergone extensive surgeries.
CMP No.9900004/2016 Page 1 of 702. It is to be noted that on 29th April, 2015, this Court had recorded the following liberty with regard to the extent of the treatment by the victim:-
"The PIL to the extent of payment of amount on the treatment of the victim of acid attack is accordingly closed with liberty to approach the Court in case SKIMS authorities, Srinagar certify that the further treatment would not be available in their Institutes."
03. We have noted the details of the treatment and the expenditure incurred by her in our order dated 24th August, 2018, which for expediency is reproduced hereunder: -
"4. That in view of the non-availability of Cornea Transplantation treatment in the Department of Ophthalmology in SKIMS Medical College, Bemina, Srinagar, the victim was taken by her father to Medical Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai where the victim was operated upon and the father of the victim was made to pay an amount of Rs. 49,604.99 + Rs. 51,264/- + Rs. 297.00 and Rs. 2,805/- in total Rs. 01,03,910.99. Copies of the bills as also copies of the prescriptions are annexed herewith as annexure C and C3.
5. That the victim has thereafter undergone undergoing three more surgeries at Apollo Specialty Hospital, Chennai, Apollo Main Hospital, Chennai and Apollo Spectra, and the father of the victim has been made to pay an amount of Rs. 03,74,331/- to the hospital authorities for the surgeries and treatment. Besides the aforesaid amount, the victim has been told that she would need at least an amount of Rs. 7.00 lacs in future for few more surgeries for her facial reconstruction. Copies of the medical CMP No.9900004/2016 Page 2 of 7 prescriptions, bill etc. showing that an amount of Rs. 03,74,331/- was spent by the father of the victim on her treatment and also a copy of letter dated 15.03.2016 of Apollo Hospital Chennai, indicating that the victim needs about Rs. 07.00 lacs more for few more surgeries are annexed herewith and collectively marked as annexure D & E.
6. That besides the aforesaid amount, the father of the victim has also incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,20,000/- on fare from Srinagar to Chennai and back and also for staying the victim at Chennai, bills showing the said position are annexed herewith and collectively marked as Annexure-F."
7. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents deserve to be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 01,03,910.99 + Rs. 3,74,331/-+ Rs. 2,20,000/- to the father of the victim which he had already spent on the treatment of the victim and also to disburse a further amount of Rs. 07.00 lacs to him so that he is in a position to take the victim to Chennai and get few more surgeries conducted on her on facial reconstruction etc."
04. So far as the present application is concerned, the applicant had prayed for release of amount of Rs.01,03,910.00 + Rs.03,74,331 + Rs.02,20,000 already spent on the medical treatment and also an amount of Rs. 7 lacs for conducting few more surgeries.
05. In the objections filed by the respondents on 13th June, 2017, the averments made by the petitioner regarding the treatment that she was required to undergo as well as the extent thereof was not disputed.
CMP No.9900004/2016 Page 3 of 706. Mr Mian Tufail, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported at (2016) 3 SCC 571 : Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India & Ors, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: -
"21. In peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that victim Chanchal deserves to be awarded a compensation more than what has been prescribed by this Court in the Laxmi's case (supra). Though in this case we are not issuing any guidelines different from the guidelines issued in Laxmi's case, we should not forget that the younger sister was also injured by the acid attack. Although her degree of sufferance is not as that of the elder one, but she also requires treatment and rehabilitation. It is to be noted that this Court in Laxmi's case (supra) doesn't put a bar on the Govt. to award compensation limited to Rs.3 Lakhs.
The State has the discretion to provide more compensation to the victim in the case of acid attack as per Laxmi's case guidelines. It is also to be noticed that this Court has not put any condition in Laxmi's case as to the degree of injuries which a victim has suffered due to acid attack. In the instant case, the victim's father has already spent more than Rs. 5 lakhs for the treatment of the victim. In consideration of the severity of the victim's injury, expenditure with regard to grafting and reconstruction surgery, physical and mental pain, etc., we are of the opinion that the victim (Chanchal) should be compensated to a tune of at least Rs. 10 Lakhs. Suffice it to say that the compensation must not only be awarded in terms of the physical injury, we have also to take note of victim's inability to lead a full life and to enjoy those amenities which is being robbed of her as a result of the acid CMP No.9900004/2016 Page 4 of 7 attack. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to award a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs and accordingly, we direct the concerned Government to compensate the victim Chanchal to a tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs, and in light of the Judgment given in Laxmi's case we direct the concerned State Government of Bihar to compensate the main victim's sister, Sonam to a tune of Rs. 3 Lakhs. Of the Total amount of Rs. 13 Lakhs, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs shall be paid to the victim and her family within a period of one month and the remaining sum of Rs. 8 lakhs shall be paid to the victims within a period of three months from the date of this order. Furthermore, the State shall upon itself take full responsibility for the treatment and rehabilitation of the victims of acid attack as per the Guidelines provided in Laxmi's case, (2015) 5 SCALE 77, vide order dated 10.4.2015."
07. We may note that in so far as the present application is concerned, the petitioner is not seeking compensation but she seeks reimbursement of the amount incurred by her on the medical treatment.
08. We had on 24th August, 2018, further observed as under: -
"5. It cannot be disputed or denied that in the light of the liberty granted by this Court on 29.04.2015, the victim of the acid violence attack is entitled to expenses for further medical treatment. The same is also her constitutional right under Article of the Constitution. This Court has also recognized this constitutional entitlement of the victim by granting the liberty on 29.04.2015.CMP No.9900004/2016 Page 5 of 7
6. In view of above, the victim would be entitled to all further expenses which have been incurred after the 29 th April 2015 or would be incurred by her for her treatment including facial reconstruction required because of the acid violence attack even if the same was required to be undertaken outside the State of JK, subject to the said treatment not being available in the State."
09. Having held the entitlement of the victim to the reimbursement of the medical treatment expenditure, we had, as a matter of caution, directed verification of the bills relied upon by the petitioner as well the discharge sheet after the treatment undergone by her at the Apollo Speciality Hospital, Sankara Nethrlaya and Apollo Cosmetic Cinics. By our orders, the Registrar Judicial of this Court has forwarded all the documents which include the treatment sheets and bills of these hospitals to them for verification.
10. The verification process was time consuming. On 30 th October, 2018, this court has recorded receipt of the verification of the bills of the Apollo Speciality Hospital, Sankara Nethrlaya as well as the Apollo Cosmetic Cinics. Copies of the verification bills were handedover to Mr B. A. DAr, learned Sr AAG, for his response and consideration.
11. No objection has been filed till date despite opportunity.
12. In this background, we have no hesitation in accepting that the petitioner has actually incurred the expenses on the treatment at Apollo Speciality Hospital, Sankara Nethrlaya and Apollo Cosmetic Cinics to the tune of Rs. 02,03,910.99 + Rs. 3,74,331 + Rs.2,20,000. In view thereof, we direct as follows:
(i) The respondents shall make payment of Rs.7,98,241/- to the victim of the acid violence forthwith towards the treatment incurred by her.CMP No.9900004/2016 Page 6 of 7
(ii) So far as the treatment in future is concerned, the victim shall forward bills of the expenditure to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, J&K State, who shall ensure expeditious reimbursement thereof.
(iii) In case there is any query, the same may be addressed to the victim who shall ensure that the same is addressed.
(iv) Liberty is also given to the parties to approach this court in case they face any difficulty.
13. This application is allowed in the above terms.
14. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the seal and signature of the Bench Secretary.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) (GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Srinagar
12.02.2018
Abdul Qayoom, PS
CMP No.9900004/2016 Page 7 of 7