4^ ^l HIGHCOURTQFCHHATTISG^HATBILASPUR WBLTPETITION No, 2367 of2005 PETITIONER Rajau VER8U8 RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh^Otbers. Post for pronouncement ofiudftment on ...4]?^dav ofSeptember. 2009. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge . ^if^^ ^y .w^ HIGH COURTOECHHMTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJTPETrnQNNo. 2367 of2005 PETITIONER : Rajau s/o Rama<»un Sahu Aged about 60 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o village Dayalpur Post Office Badnara, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagwh^ Distt. -Durg(C.G.) VER8US RE8PONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throygh: Collector, Dur^ astt Durg(C.G.) 2. Sonkar, Town Inspector, Chrt P(^t Sambalpur, Pdice Station Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarii, Distt. - Dwg (C.G.) 3. Superintendent ofPolice, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WMT PETHIONIJNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF THE CQNS11TUTIQNQFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AjRiihotrl, J. Present: Shri R.M.Solapurkar, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Goveniment Advocate forthe State/respondents 1 aiid 3. JUDGMBNT (Passed oa i^ssy of Ssptember, 2009) 1. By this petition, Ihe petitioner seeks a directi<m to the respondents to pay a sum ofRs. 5 lacs to the petitioner as compensation for causmg damage to his right eye and farther^ a direction to grant Rs. 10,000/- for e^enses of treatment. 2. The facts, in nutehell, as projected by the petitioner is tfaat RajiiMti Bai, who is the daughter-in-law ofthe petitioner, after th@ deatii ofher husband aamely Shiv Charan, started living in village Navagaon alongwith her two childr^a. One child namely Ramesh was living with his grand fatter i.e. the petitioner. One day, Rajmati Bai came and took Rarrwsh with her witiout the ::^—^^ t 'l '^^^- »N(»Ullll||l^• 4. ^ pemiission of the petitioner. Tfaereafter, Rajmati approached the p)lice outpost at Sambalpur to lodge a report. The petitioner also reached there. The respondent No. 2; who was the Incharge ofthe outoost Sambalpur; slapped the petitioner which kd to damage ofright eye ofthe petitioner. Thus; this petition for grant ofcompensation. Shri Solapurkar, leamed counsel for tfie petitioiier submite that tfae right eye of the petitioner was damaged on account of the assault givan by the respondent No. 2. Thus, the respondents are liable to pay eompensation to the petitioner. Shri Solapurkar forther submits that the re^pondent No. 2 was aot examined in the enquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional OflRcer (PoMce); Bemetara. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondents 1 and 3 would suhmit tiiat there was a dispute between the petitioner and his daughter-in-Iaw Rajmati Bai with regard to custody of Ramesh. Qn 4 March, 2004, the petitioner alongwifh Ra|mati and Ramesh went to the police outpost for assistance. A complaint was lodged by Rajmati against the petitioner fhat Rajmati may be allowed to take her son Ramesh with her. It was forther complained that the petitioner has illegally and unauthorizedly detained h©rson Ramesh and not permitting her to take Ramesh with her. A counselling was done aad ultimately. the petitioner agreed to send Ramesh wifi her mother Rajmati Bai. Thereafter on 25 April, 2004, the petitioner filed a written rq>ort before the Station House OfRcer, Police Station, Nandghat stating fliat tiie respondent No. 2 has assaulted him as a result, tte attire wom by him was tom off and the glass of the spectacles was brok^i, wMch had caused damage to his right eye. The Senior Supermtendent ofPolice, Durg, by order dated 27th July, 2004 (.^nnexure R/4) directed the Sub Divisitmal Qfficer y^ 6. (Police). Bemetara {for short '8DO<fP>k to enauire into the comnlamt lodgcd by the petitionw with regard to tfae damage ofright eye ofliie petitioner. ITie petitioner did not mention anything in the hospital where he has undergone treatment as is evident from Annexure R/5. In the enqyiry report subrmtted by the 8DO(P), complaint ofthe petitioner was found to be fals^ and as such, no action was thereafter required. Shri Bhatia would further submit that no such incident as alleged by the pelitioneT, has taken place at the police out post as nothing has been found in the enquiry. The report was lodged by the petitioner subsequently after a period ofmore than one month on 25 Apnl, 2004, when the alleged incident had taken place on 04 Mareh, 2004 and Aat too, onthe advice ofthe local Member ofLegislative Assembly. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for Ihe parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On enquiry being comiuoted by fhe SDO(P), it has been found tfaat the alleged incident had aot taken ^ace. Even otherwise- the petitioner has not infwmed tte police withia tte reasen^le time but has taken more than a montfa in lodging the report. The pd;itioner has further not disclosed anything before the Doctor that his right eye was lost on account ofcertain incident ofslapping by tfae respondent No. 2. while he was under his treatment. The petitioner, in this petition has not questioned the legality and validity of the report wherein the allegations made by tbe petitioner have not been found proved by the 8DO(P), Bemetara. Be that as it may. it is a case fbr ^airt ofcompensation to tiie petitionar. This Court cannot adjudicate the loss suffered by the petitioner and determme the compensation. 'fhe petition involves complicated question of facts as the petitioner has sought for grant of compensation and tiot for a^y other retief. s^^&^ ^ f. ^ ^, ^ 7. <^> This Court does not havewherewithal to determine tfae iMture ofloss as well as quantum ofcompemation^ ifany. Thus; without expressing any opinion on merite of the case with regard to grant of compensatiotL the petition is dismissed as not mamtainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Jurisdictional civil court fw damages/compensation, if any; that may be determined after examining the evidences and documents adduoed/tproduced by the parties before the competent court. No order asto costs. Sd7- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge