Bombay High Court
Anuja Arun Redij vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 January, 2023
Bench: K.R. Sriram, Rajesh S. Patil
1/2 6-WP-3116-2022.doc
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PURTI
PURTI PRASAD
PRASAD PARAB
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PARAB Date:
2023.01.09
17:25:04
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 3116 OF 2022
Anuja Arun Redij ....Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
----
Ms. Dhanashree Bhate i/b Mr. Ketan Dhavle for Petitioner.
Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for State/Respondent.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 9th JANUARY 2023
P.C. :
1. By a judgment pronounced on 26th September 2022 the
following directions were passed :
16. Thus, in our opinion, Petitioner is entitled to
compensation as provided under the said GR. The said GR
specifically provides that when death is caused due to attack
by wild animal, monetary compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs is
payable. The said GR provides for payment of a fixed amount
towards compensation in case of death due to attack by wild
animal and thus in our opinion Petitioner is entitled to the
amount provided in the said GR. The accident is of
5th February 2019, the Petitioner made an application for
compensation on 11th February 2019. The said GR does not
provide for any stipulated time for payment of compensation.
However, Petitioner was entitled to monetary compensation
within a reasonable time, which can be construed as
maximum three months from the date of her application.
Petitioner is unnecessarily been denied her right to
compensation. Hence, we are of the view that the Petitioner is
also entitled to reasonable interest on the amount of
compensation, calculated at the rate of 6 percent per annum
from the expiry of three months from the date of her
application till actual payment is made. It will be also
necessary to direct the Respondents to make the payment of
compensation within a reasonable time of maximum three
months from today. The facts of the present case
shows that only because of hyper technical approach of
Respondent no. 2 and further inaction of the Respondent
no.1, the Petitioner was required to approach this Court.
Purti Parab
2/2 6-WP-3116-2022.doc
Thus, facts and circumstances of this case warrants that the
Petitioner is also entitled to reasonable cost of this litigation,
which is quantified at Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, for the reasons
stated hereinabove we are of the opinion that the
Petition is required to be allowed by directing the
Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner.
2. Ms. Srivastava appearing for respondents casually stated that
respondents want two more weeks for taking action, what action we do not
know. But when we asked would it for compliance with directions given in
the order, Ms. Srivastava answered in the affirmative. Least we would have
expected respondent should have filed affidavit explaining the reason why
they do not comply with the directions of the court even though two weeks
have expired after three months deadline got over. Ms. Srivastava
requested the matter to be kept tomorrow so that Respondent No.2 shall
personally remain present in the court with affidavit explaining the reason
why the directions have not been strictly complied with.
3. Stand over to 10th January 2023.
4. For today's adjournment respondent shall pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as cost and this amount shall be
paid by cheque drawn in favour of Kirtikar Law Library and the cheque shall
be issued by Respondent No.2 from his personal bank account not to be
recovered from the State of Maharashtra.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Purti Parab
