Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims ... vs Union Of India And Others on 28 January, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Review Application No.266 of 2010 (O&M) in
Civil Writ Petition No.13214 of 1996
Date of decision: 28th January, 2011
Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Association
... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the applicants.
Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate and Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate and Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J Civil Misc. No.14016 of 2010 Present application has been filed by Sagar Mal Aggarwal and his wife Sheela Devi. Their daughter Kiran Gupta aged 45 years is stated to have died in the Dabwali Fire Tragedy along with her three minor children namely, Deepak aged 1 year, Jatin Gupta aged 5 years and Neha Gupta aged 8 years. It is stated in this application that the entire amount of compensation is being disbursed to Vidya Sagar, husband of Kiran Gupta and father of the three children named above. It is stated that at the time Review Application No.266 of 2010 (O&M) in 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13214 of 1996 when compensation was assessed by the Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims' Compensation Commission, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Commission) and was to be awarded, Vidya Sagar had promised that the same shall be donated towards charity, but after remarriage he has not kept his promise. In the present application, a clarification has been sought that the entire amount of compensation should not be awarded to Vidya Sagar. It is further stated that the multiplier applied to determine the compensation in case of death of Kiran Gupta is not justifiable and prayed for its enhancement.
There was no serious opposition to the condonation of delay. Hence, for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application, we allow the same and take up the Review Application on board for decision.
Review Application No.266 No.2010 Applicants are parents of Kiran Gupta, who was married with one Vidya Sagar. From the loins of Vidya Sagar and womb of Kiran Gupta, three children namely, Deepak, Jatin Gupta and Neha Gupta were born. Kiran Gupta and the aforesaid three children died during the Dabwali Fire Tragedy. At that time, age of Kiran Gupta was 45 years, whereas the children namely, Deepak, Jatin Gupta and Neha Gupta were 1 year, 5 years and 8 years old respectively. It is stated in this review application that the multiplier applied for determination of compensation qua the death of Kiran Gupta is inadequate and a multiplier of 18 should have been applied. It is further contended before us that the compensation awarded qua the death of three children is also inadequate. It has been further submitted that the Executing Court should not disburse the entire amount of compensation to Vidya Sagar alone.
Review Application No.266 of 2010 (O&M) in 3Civil Writ Petition No.13214 of 1996 So far as the award of compensation is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that we have already laid the principles for applying the multiplier. For the reasons stated in our judgment, we had applied a multiplier of 15 in the case of Kiran Gupta. There is no reason to change the multiplier. Similarly, the compensation awarded qua the death of three children calls for no change. Hence, the prayer for enhancement of compensation qua the death of all the four deceased is liable to be rejected.
However, so far as the prayer for disbursal of the amount of compensation to the applicants is concerned, we are of the view that such a prayer cannot be entertained by us. It is for the Executing Court to disburse the amount of compensation in accordance with the provisions of law. The applicants ought to have filed their objections and laid before the Court the documents that bind Vidya Sagar to donate the amount of compensation to charity. In a review application, this prayer cannot be entertained. Thus, we relegate the applicants to approach the Executing Court, which may decide their objections in accordance with the provisions of law.
With the observations made above, present review application is disposed of.
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE JUDGE
January 28, 2011
rps