Deepak Atmaram Ingle vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 914 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.N. Patel, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. A letter was received by this Court from the petitioner Deepak Atmaram Ingle, Prisoner No. 2460, who was lodged in Amravati Central Prison for undergoing his sentence. The letter was treated as Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee to present the petitioner before this Court.

3. The petitioner came to be convicted by the Court of Sessions, Akola for having committed offence under Section 354 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code by judgment and Order dated March 22, 2002 and came to be lodged in Central Prison, Amravati to undergo his sentence. The petitioner was given training and thereafter was working in the tailoring section of the jail. During the time the petitioner was working on cotton ginning machine, he met with an accident where his left arm broke at two places. He was sent to Irwin Hospital and advised to undergo surgery for insertion of rod. The jail authorities instead of providing proper medical treatment to the petitioner/prisoner ignored their responsibility because of which the petitioner suffered disability to his left arm.

4. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court stating that as he was working as a labourer and being the sole earning member of the family which consists of his old and infirm mother, sick wife and three minor daughters, for want of proper medical treatment, he has become disabled. The petitioner also made a grievance that he was paid a sum of Rs. 25.50 for stitching coats and was given work in the ginning department for which no prior training was given to him and according to him, this is the cause of the accident. On filing of the petition, this Court in order to ascertain the disability which the petitioner has suffered due to the accident and for not being provided medical treatment called for report and this Court has received report from Neeti Nursing Home which is annexed with the petition. This Court may mention here that on the petitioner being referred to Government Medical College, this Court was not satisfied with the examination of the prisoner and the report received from Government Medical College for which reason the petitioner was required to be referred to an eminent Orthopaedic Surgeon. Thereafter on going through the medical report of Dr. Marwah, this Court expressed that as Dr. Marwah has certified that the petitioner has suffered disability of permanent nature which extends to 5 to 10%, the prisoner is entitled to be compensated for the accident suffered by him while he was working in the tailoring section of the prison department by applying the parameters under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

5. We really appreciate the stand taken by the State in the matter when the learned A. P. P., sought time to refer the case of petitioner to Home Department so that the Government can take a decision in this regard. Roughly the compensation was worked out in the sum of Rs One Lakh.

6. It appears that this is a rare case when the State Government has realised its obligation to compensate a prisoner who got injured while working in jail.

7. It is the settled law that the prisoner undergoing sentence in jail is expected to be provided with employment and if he is so provided, he is entitled for all the benefits to which a free citizen is entitled under the law, as regards the wages which are required to be paid to him and the protection of all labour laws, ours being a welfare State.

8. The State Government by resolution has decided to pay compensation of Rs. 84,534/- to the petitioner which is placed on record by the learned A.P.P. The said decision is taken vide a notification dated July 22, 2004. We have already recorded our appreciation in the matter.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the State Government has taken a decision almost after one year of the accident suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner is also entitled for interest on the said amount of compensation.

10. It is further submitted that the prison authorities did not act in the matter though it was obligatory on their part particularly the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati ought to have seen that the prisoner is given due and proper treatment which could have probably saved him from suffering this disability and this amounts to negligence of duty on the part of prison authorities.

11. The learned A.P.P. submits that these allegations are baseless as the prisoner was promptly removed to Irwin Hospital. Well, in our opinion, merely removing the prisoner to the hospital is not sufficient but the jail authorities should see that the prisoner who is held in captivity deserves to be given the best possible medical treatment which is available in Government Hospitals. It appears that in the present case though the Medical Officer at Irwin Hospital suggested a surgery and insertion of iron rod, it was not adhered to and the prison authorities merely requested the hospital to continue with whatever treatment which is found necessary without going for surgery and probably this resulted in causing disability.

12. It has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the prison authorities were also surprised as to how the petitioner can claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is stated in the affidavit in reply that this was merely academic discussion. In the opinion of this Court, the I.G. Prison is expected to conduct Workshop in all the prisons throughout the State of Maharashtra to apprise not only the prisoners of their rights but also Prison Officers so as to sensitise them in respect of the rights of the prisoners/inmates in jail. Needless to say that a prisoner is not deprived of his fundamental rights except for curtailing his liberty if he is imprisoned and the right to medical treatment is a necessary element of right to life. The prisoner is also entitled to be given the best possible treatment in case he suffers any injury or sickness in the prison. We hope that the I.G. Prison would take further steps in the matter and educate the prison authorities in State of Maharashtra so that they are sensitised about the prisoners' rights and their duty towards prisoners and have a change of attitude.

13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, particularly when the State has come forward to compensate the prisoner, we are not inclined to impose additional burden on the State by directing them to pay interest on the amount. We are sure that the sanctioned amount under the notification dated July 22, 2004 is forthwith credited in the account of the prisoner and can be deposited by investing the amount in a term deposit for a period of five years with a condition that the dependents of the prisoner would be entitled to withdraw the quarterly interest on the said amount for which the prisoner can nominate any responsible member of the family. The amount be deposited in the nearest branch of the State Bank of India where the family of the prisoner resides. Further, the prisoner or any member of his family would not be entitled to withdraw the amount for the said period.

14. The prisoner be forthwith transferred to Central Prison, Amravati. The learned A.P.P. is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Home, Incharge of Jail, I.G. Prison, Pune and to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur and Amravati.

15. With the abovesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with costs. Costs to be paid to the counsel appearing for the petitioner which is quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.