Shrikrishna A. Prabhu vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2002 Latest Caselaw 1344 Bom

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, C.J.

1. A news item appeared in Daily Sakal (Marathi) dated June 21, 2001, It was a letter addressed by one S. A. Prabhu, petitioner in the present petition. In the said letter, it was stated that his son, Rajesh, aged about 23 years, was the best Air Wing Cadet in the NCC, and was Gold Medalist. He had joined the Air Force Academy, Hyderabad. On August 17, 1995, he was on a solo ride. Due to irresponsible and careless behaviour of higher officers, there was an accident in which he lost his life.

2. The father, thereafter, mentioned in the letter that no proper care has been taken by the Government towards Air. Force Pilot Trainees, The Government did not treat them as Government Servants, and they were treated as Government servants only after they become commissioned officers. He was also angry towards the treatment shown to Air Force Pilot Trainees and their family members. The father had stated that after the death of his son, financial assistance of only Rs. 45,000.00 was extended to him, out of which Rs. 20,000.00 were paid in cash and Rs. 25,000.00 were invested in Fixed Deposit for 65 months. He has stated that he was getting Rs. 375.00 plus DA as Family Pension.

3. His grievance was that insurance coverage was not applied to Air Force Pilot Trainees. The same, therefore, must be made applicable to trainees also. Regarding quantum of amount of compensation, he urged that in case of railway accidents and deaths of travellers, as also pilgrims or Haj Yatris, Government was paying to their heirs a sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00. He wondered why even that amount was not paid to the parents of victims of Airforce accidents. He has, therefore, suggested that some policy-guidelines must be laid down for such persons.

4. The letter was published in Marathi, which was translated in English, and was registered as P.I.L. No. 74 of 2001. Notices were issued, pursuant to which, the respondents appeared.

5. An affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Station Commander, wherein it was stated that prior to 1996, there was no insurance coverage to Air Force Pilot Trainees. It was made compulsory with effect from July 11, 1996, and the insurance coverage was Rs. 3.3 lacs. In turn, however, trainees were required to pay monthly contribution towards the premium to the extent of Rs. 315.00 per month for Aircrew Flight Cadet and of Rs. 200.00 per month for Ground Duty Flight Cadet. The insurance coverage was then increased to Rs. 10 lacs.

6. The deponent has stated that the accident in question took place on August 17, 1995, i.e., before the insurance coverage was applied to Air Force Pilot Trainees. As per the policy being in vogue, the petitioner, father of the Air Force Pilot Trainee, had been awarded ex gratia amount of Rs. 45,000.00 in accordance with the Government of India letter dated May 3, 1979. It was also stated that in addition, an amount of Rs. 375.00 per month along with DA relief was made available to him. The said amount was subsequently increased to Rs. 1275, and the petitioner is getting the said amount along with DA. It was, therefore, submitted that the action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that in 1995, there was no insurance policy for Air Force Pilot Trainees. For the first time, such policy was formulated in 1996, and it was to the extent of Rs. 3.3 lacs. The amount was subsequently raised to Rs. 10 lacs. But it is equally true that for that, the Air Force Pilot Trainees have to pay premium, which the son of the petitioner did not pay, since the scheme was not in force. Moreover, even under policy coverage, the members of the family of deceased Air Force Pilot Trainees would get only one-time payment, and they would not be entitled to pension per month, which has been made in the instant case, initially Rs. 375.00 per month plus DA, which was revised to Rs. 1,275.00 per month plus DA.

8. At the same time, however, in our opinion, the first ex gratia payment of Rs. 45,000.00 which had been made could not be said to be adequate in the light of the facts and circumstances, as also the policy decision which was taken as early as in May, 1979. The uniform policy-decision of payment of Rs, 45,000.00 was taken before more than fifteen years of the accident. In our opinion, the respondents ought to have taken into account the relevant fact that the amount was fixed at Rs. 45,000.00 in May, 1979, whereas the accident took place after more than sixteen years, in August, 1995.

9. In our view, the ends of justice would be met if we direct, which we hereby do, the respondent-authorities to revise and pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lac only), instead of Rs. 45,000.00. Since an amount of Rs. 45,000.00 has already been ordered to be paid (Rs. 20,000.00 in cash and Rs. 25,000.00 is Fixed Deposits), an additional amount of Rs. 55,000.00 be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. Such amount will be paid within three months from today. The regular monthly payment of Rs. 1,275 plus DA will be continued to be paid to the petitioner.

10. We have considered and decided the above case in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, as also keeping in view the fact that the policy-decision of ex gratia payment of Rs. 45,000.00 was taken before sixteen years of the accident.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board, and Ors. v. Chandrima Das (Mrs) and Ors., , wherein an amount of Rs. 10 lacs was awarded to a lady, who was raped by a railway employee. In our view, the facts and circumstances of that case were totally different. It was an offence, and keeping in mind the nature of offence as also Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court passed the order. The ratio laid down therein, therefore, would not apply to the facts of the present case.

12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.