WA 138/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C R SARMA The present appeals are arising out of the common judgment and order, dated 27.1 0.2009, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C) Nos.5956/2006 an d 3254/2008. The writ petitioners, in the aforesaid writ petitions, being aggrie ved by the quantum of the compensation, awarded by the learned single Judge, has come up with these appeals on the ground of inadequacy of the compensation. As both the writ appeals, arising out of the common judgment and order, are based o n almost identical facts, involving similar questions of law and are represented by the same set of lawyers, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the learned counsels, we have heard these appeals together and propose to dispose o f the same by this common judgment and order. 2. We have heard Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel, appearing for the a ppellants and Mr. P S Deka, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents. 3. The facts involved in the said writ petitions, may, in brief, be stated as follows : 4. The writ petitioners (in WP(C) No.5956 of 2006 and in WP(C) No.3 254 of 2008), being Ration Card holders, purchased S.K Oil from the fair price s hops. The said kerosene, S.K. Oil was supplied by M/s. Agarwal Auto Agencies, i. e. the respondent No.9, an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing) Divis ion, Guwahati, i.e. the respondent No.8 to the respondent No.10(Md. Anwar Hussa in) in WP(C) 5956/2006 and Sri Binod Nath, i.e. the respondent No.10 in WP(C) No .3254/2008, who, being the proprietors of the concerned fair price shops, dealt with the distribution of kerosene oil, under the scheme of Supply of Essential C ommodities, sponsored by the Government of Assam. 5. On 25.12.2004, in the evening, when the daughter of the writ pet itioner in WP(C) No.5956/2006, namely, Miss Rizuma Begum, a student of Class-X s tarted lighting a hurricane Lamp, by pouring kerosene Oil into it, the hurricane lamp got blasted, as a result of which, the said daughter of the writ petitione r aforesaid sustained severe burn injuries on her person. Though the injured wa s taken to the hospital for medical treatment, she succumbed to her injuries on 05.01.2005. The petitioner, apart from lodging an F.I.R with the Police, on 02.0 5.2006, filed an application before the S.D.O(Civil) through the Circle Officer, seeking financial help due to the said accidental death of her daughter aforesa id. 6. According to the writ petitioner, her daughter, aforesaid, was a brilliant student having future prospect and that she sustained financial expen diture amounting to Rs.30,000/- towards the medical treatment on her said daught er. The State Government extended an exgratia grant of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten t housand) only in favour of the petitioner, on account of the said accidental dea th of her daughter. Being aggrieved by the said meagre amount of compensation, t he mother of the deceased, as writ petitioner, filed the writ petition, involvin g writ jurisdiction of the Court and seeking a direction for payment of compensa tion Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only. 7. In WP(C) No.3254/2008, the petitioner’s wife, Smt. Saira Begum ( in WP(C) No.3254 of 2008), while lightening a wick, on 30.06.2005, after filling the same with the Kerosene oil, purchased by him from the fair price shop of th e respondent No.10, the wick got blasted, causing burn injury to his wife and da mage to his property. Though the said wife of the petitioner was shifted to Gauh ati Medical College and Hospital, for medical treatment, she succumbed to her in juries, on 07.07.2005. 8. According to the petitioner, beside lodging a FIR with the Polic e, he approached the S.D.O(Civil), Rongia, on 03.06.2006, seeking compensation t owards the death of his wife due to the said accident, caused by the use of kero sene oil, purchased from the fair price shop. The State respondent granted exgra tia compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands) only. 9. According to the writ petitioners, accidents leading to the deat h of the said deceased persons took place due to supply of adulterated kerosene oil through the fair price shop and for this they suffered irreparable loss and injury by the losing members of their families, for no fault on their part. Diss atisfied with the meagre amount of compensation, granted by the said authority, the writ petitioners, by filing the said writ petitions separately, prayed for o rder(s) requiring the State Government to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10, 00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) only each in favour of the petitioners. 10. The learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, af oresaid, enhanced the exgratia compensation of Rs.10,000/-, granted by the State , to Rs.50,000/- in favour of each of the writ petitioners. 11. The writ petitioners being dissatisfied with the grant of compen sation aforesaid have come up with these appeals. Mr. Roshid, learned counsel, a ppearing for the appellant, has submitted that the daughter of the appellant, in W.A No.138 of 2011, was a brilliant student of Class-X, having better future pr ospect, and that her death, in the said incident was a grate loss causing a void to the life of the appellant. Therefore, it is contended that the amount of com pensation of Rs.50,000/- was not sufficient to adequately compensate the appella nt for the said loss. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appella nt in W.A No.29 of 2008 (arising out of WP(C) No.3254/2008), has lost his 32 yea rs old young wife in connection with accident caused by the use of S.K.oil, supp lied from the fair price shop and that the said death caused irreparable loss an d injury and a great set back to the life of the appellant. Therefore, it is sub mitted that compensation of Rs.50,000/-, as awarded by the learned single Judge, was not at all adequate and sufficient. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has also refe rred to a notification, dated 24.04.2007, by which, compensation for accidental death has been enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- w.e.f. the said date. The learned couns el, in support of the contention, has also relied on the case of State of Karnat aka and others Vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak and Others reported in (2010)3 SCC15. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and examin ing the materials before us, we are of the considered opinion that the short que stion involved in this case, is whether the compensation awarded by the learned single Judge was adequate and if not, what should be the reasonable compensation , to be awarded in favour of the appellants. 13. The single Judge, while fixing the ex-gratia compensation at Rs. 50,000/- observed as follows: 7. Since the repeated incidents of bursting of S.K.oil lamps had taken place i n a particular area, it was the duty of the police department and also the Civil authorities of the State to ascertain the cause of such incidents. However, as indicated above, even after intimating the incident to the police station, the F .I.Rs were buried under the carpet and no attempt was made to come to a logical conclusion. Because of this negligency, the petitioners may not be in a position to get adequate compensation either from the manufacturers of the defective ker osene lamps or from the I.O.C., if the S.K.Oil was in fact adulterated one. 8. In my considered opinion, it is the duty of the Sate to protect the live s of its citizens. However, in the present case, it appears that the State autho rities had adopted an indifferent attitude. Hence, I hold that the petitioners a re entitled to get compensation, at least as a public law remedy. 14. The said judgment and order, containing the observation of the l earned trial Judge, has not been challenged by the State authority, and as such, the decision regarding entitlement of compensation has attained its finality. 15. From the pleadings of the parties, as well as the unchallenged f indings, rendered by the learned single Judge, we have no difficulty in understa nding that the deceased persons died due to the accident, caused by the use of S K oil, supplied through the fair price shop. The liability of the State Governme nt to pay compensation has been determined by the learned single Judge and the s ame has not been controverted as unchallenged. 16. In the case of Ganapati Chaya Nayak and Others (Supra) the decea sed was a constable of CRPF and he was the earning member of the appellant’s fam ily. The respondents contended that the death of the deceased was accidental one and the same was challenged by the appellants alleging that the said death was the result of brutal murder by fellow constables. The appellant filed a writ pet ition before the High Court claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The High Cou rt, while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondents to pay 1,00,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant and his wife for the mental agony and the loss suffered by them. Being aggrieved by the order, passed by the High Cour t, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, by filing a special leave applic ation and the Supreme Court while enhancing the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-, observed as follows : However, the death of son of the appellant is definitely not only a personal lo ss to the family but also financial. The deceased was a victim of an unfortunate incident and this has caused a heavy loss and mental agony to the family member s of the deceased. The aforesaid findings recorded by the High Court have not be en challenged by the respondents before us by filing any independent appeal. Tha t being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.1 l akh directed to be paid to the appellants towards compensation and damages is me agre. Therefore, we are to consider what would be an appropriate amount of compe nsation which is payable to the appellants . The Supreme Court in the above referred case at the time of enha ncing the compensation considered that the deceased person, who was the son of t he appellant, was the only earning member of the family and that the earnings of the deceased were a source of sustenance for the family. 17. In the case at hand, there is nothing, on record, to show that t he deceased persons were the earning members and that the writ petitioners-appel lants were depended on their earnings. Therefore, the principle, on which the co mpensation was enhanced to double the amount, granted by the High Court, cannot be applicable in the present cases. However, there can be no dispute that the lo ss of such young persons caused void in the family life of the writ petitioners- appellants. Apart from suffering from mental agony and emotional pain, the appel lants have certainly been deprived from the company, love and affection of the s aid deceased persons, who were very near and dear to them. 18. Therefore, though, apparently, there is no evidence of financial loss, the death of the deceased persons was personal loss to the writ petitione rs-appellants and the members of their respective families. Admittedly, both the deceased persons were provided medical treatment by the writ petitioners-appell ants, who tried their level best for the survival of the deceased persons. There fore, apart form suffering mentally and emotionally, they also suffered financia l loss towards medical treatment of the deceased persons. 19. Though, the loss created in the family of the writ petitioners d ue to death of such young persons cannot be filled up by any amount of money, th ere cannot be any denial that the appellants should be reasonably compensated. A dmittedly, there is no standard ratio, fixed for computing the compensation of s uch loss. By the notification, dated 24.04.2007, issued by the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Relief and Rehabilitation Branch, the Government fixed the compensation for accidental death at Rs.1,00,00 0/-. In the said notification it has been mentioned that the same would come int o force w.e.f 24.4.2007. By the said notification, the earlier notification, dat ed 22.09.1998 stood superseded. As revealed from the notification, dated 24.04.2 007 aforesaid, the compensation payable for death prior to 24.4.2007 as per noti fication, dated 22.09.1998 was Rs.10,000/-. Admittedly, the incidents, mentioned in both the writ petitions before us, took place prior to 24.4.2007. Therefore, the rate of compensation fixed by the notification of 2007 is not applicable to the present cases. The Government has also granted exgratia compensation @ Rs.1 0,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only to each of the appellants on the basis of the earlier notification. 20. The learned single Judge while taking notice of the notification , dated 22.09.1998, which has been superseded by the notification, dated 24.04.2 007, observed as follows : 10. It has been noticed that the aforesaid Notification is not scrupulously fol lowed by the State in-as-much as higher amounts are being sanctioned by the Govt . in the case to the victims of bomb blasts, drowning, vehicular accidents etc. Even, otherwise the amount of exgratia payment fixed in the year 1998 has become obsolete . With the above observations the learned single Judge enhanced th e exgratia compensation to Rs.50,000/-, which has remained unchallenged. 21. Though the rate fixed by the 2007 notification is not strictly a pplicable in the cases at hand, considering the proportionality and the trend of increase of the compensation during the period of 9 years i.e. from 1998 to 200 7 (the rate of 1998 has been increased by 10 times in 2007), we are of the consi dered view that, for ends of justice, the minimum compensation in 2004/2005 shou ld be 6/7 times higher than the rate fixed in 1998. 22. In the light of the above discussion, considering the irreparabl e loss injury, the medical expenditure sustained by the appellants and the menta l pain and agony caused by such accidental death, for no fault on their part, we are of the opinion that a higher amount of compensation, would met the ends of justice and bring some amount of solace to the appellants. 23. In view of the above discussion and the attending facts and cir cumstances, we deem it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation. Accord ingly, we direct that the State of Assam shall pay at the rate of Rs.75,000/- (R upees seventy five thousand) to each of the appellants-writ petitioners, aforesa id, as compensation, instead of Rs.50,000/-, as fixed by the learned single Judg e. The said amount shall be paid within a period of three months from this date. The amount, already paid, shall be adjusted while complying with this order. 24. The appeals stands disposed of in terms of the order aforesaid. 25. No cost.