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