Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed under Clause X of the Bombay High Court (Letters Patent) Act, 1866 to challenge the judgment dated 30-05-2019 which dismissed a previous writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that he was not entitled to any interest on the ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded to him, a Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ. and Tushar Rao Gedela, J.* said that since the rehabilitation policy of 2006 was to be implemented in a time-bound manner, failure to do so could not be treated lightly and held that the appellant was entitled to interest at 10 percent per annum on the amount of compensation paid to him with effect from 16-01-2006 till 08-04-2016.
Background:
The appellant in the present matter was a victim of the Anti-Sikh riots that had occurred on 31-10-1984 after the assassination of the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. The appellant claimed that his residence in Delhi had been ransacked and looted in the said riots on 01-11-1984 and 02-11-1984.
On 06-11-1984 the Government issued a notification to grant an immediate compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the next of kin of each person who had died in the Anti-Sikh riots and Rs. 2000/- to every injured person. Additionally, the notification also prescribed payment of compensation worth Rs. 10,000/- in case of total destruction of a house and Rs. 5000/- in case of substantial damage to a house.
On 09-11-1984, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered upon the complaint of the appellant’s father which mentioned that his family had suffered a loss of Rs. 60,800/- due to looting by a mob. Accordingly, the appellant filed an application dated 12-12-1987 with the office of the Lt. Governor seeking payment of the ex-gratia compensation. However, he did not receive any amount.
Meanwhile, the Government issued two other notifications to enhance the amount of the compensation payable to the Anti-Sikh riot victims.
The appellant filed a writ petition to seek compensation worth Rs. 6,08,000/- along with interest which was disposed of with a direction to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to set up a Screening Committee for considering the claim. The Screening Committee rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant’s name did not figure in the list of those who had been paid the initial compensation in respect of the Anti-Sikh riots.
Consequently, the appellant filed another writ petition to challenge the rejection of this claim, which was disposed of, and the respondents were directed to re-examine the case. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Shahdara rejected the claim of the appellant, and being aggrieved by this, he preferred another writ petition which was disposed of with the direction to the Screening Committee to pass a speaking order.
After examining the claim of the appellant, the Screening Committee recommended that compensation worth Rs. 1,00,000/- should be paid to the appellant, and the said compensation was finally paid to him on 08-04-2016.
Subsequently, a petition was filed by the appellant for the issuance of directions to the respondents to either pay the present market value of the goods lost or in alternative, pay interest at 12 percent per annum on the compensation given to the appellant. This petition was disposed of.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that even though the respondents did not dispute that the appellant and his family had suffered during the 1984 riots, the appellant had to wait till 2016 to get the ex gratia compensation from the respondents after four rounds of litigation, spending the precious time of his life as well as hard-earned money. The Court said that it was difficult to ignore the pain and suffering that the appellant may have undergone in the past four decades.
The Court said that even though the policy sanctioning ex-gratia compensation did not include any interest on delayed payments of the compensation, yet the Courts are empowered under Article 226 to grant reasonable interest on delayed payment of ex gratia compensation in suitable cases.
The Court found that the delay in payment of ex gratia compensation was attributable to the respondents at least from 16-01-2006 i.e. the date of release of the Rehabilitation policy, if not for the entire period.
The Court said that it was evident from the terms of para 4 of the Rehabilitation policy that the disbursement which included enhancement to the extent of ten times the compensation assessed or paid earlier, had to be verified, assessed, and disbursed in a time-bound manner.
Further, the Court reached an irresistible conclusion that the said policy of 2006 was to be implemented in a time-bound manner. Even though there was no stipulation as to what the consequence of such delay would be, the Court opined that such beneficial policies for the rehabilitation of the 1984 riot victims could not be rendered meaningless.
The Court referred to Union of India v. Premwati1 and stated that since the Rehabilitation policy was to be implemented in a time-bound manner, failure to do so, could not be treated lightly. Thus, the Court opined that the ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was released to the appellant on 08-04-2016 would attract interest from the date of issuance of the rehabilitation policy dated 16-01-2006.
Thus, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with effect from 16-01-2006 till 08-04-2016 when he was handed over the amount of compensation.
The Court directed the Union of India (respondent 1) to calculate the interest on the aforesaid sum and pay the same to the appellant within six weeks and disposed of the petition with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- which was to be paid by the Union of India within six weeks.
[Gurnam Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5685, Decided on 21-08-2024]
*Judgment authored by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant — Advocate Monica Kapoor, Party-in-person
For Respondents — Advocate Apoorv Kurup, Advocate Nidhi Mittal, SC Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate Kartik Sharma, Advocate Rishabh Srivastava
1. W.P (C) No. 10087/2019
