In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
L.P.A. No. 1641 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 07, 2011
State of Punjab and others
---Appellants
versus
Smt. Krishna Devi
---Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
***
Present: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants
***
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. This is a case of custodial death.
2. The State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of
the Letters Patent against order dated 14.12.2010 whereby the learned Single
Judge has allowed the compensation of ` 2.5lacs to the widow of the deceased
after recording the finding that there was failure to perform duty by the Jail
Authorities with due diligence. The basis of the aforesaid finding was that the
undertrial was not suffering from any ailment which could be the cause of his
sudden death. The Jail authorities did not even assert that he was rushed to the
hospital timely and was given medical aid. A hale and hearty person having
no ailment history and who earns his livelihood by selling eatables on a
bicycle could not have met with a sudden death but for the lack of timely
L.P.A. No. 1641 of 2011 (O&M) -2-
medical assistance. The under trial was the holder of BPL ration card and was
in the state of penury. The Deputy Commissioner, Moga, had also
recommended in his letter dated 17.10.2006 (P-4) the grant of assistance of
` 2.5lacs to the widow of the deceased -writ petitioner-respondent and her
family members.
3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that no interference in this appeal filed by the State would
be warranted. The meager amount of ` 2.5lacs awarded as compensation to the
widow of the deceased and her family members cannot be regarded as without
a reasonable cause. There is negligence on the part of the Jail Authorities to
grant timely medical aid to the jail inmate. There is, thus, no merit in the
appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
4. In view of the fact that the appeal is dismissed, we do not express
any opinion on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the
appeal.
(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE
(GURDEV SINGH)
JUDGE
September 07, 2011
PARAMJIT