[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 21 January, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
5_WP6921_17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6921 OF 2017
Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents
Ms. Vrushali L. Maindad for Petitioners.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, AGP with Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 21, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard Ms. Maindad, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.Walimbe, learned AGP for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased / victim.
In the present case, the deceased was referred to the regional Mental
Hospital, Yerwada, District - Pune for treatment. On 21.11.2013, the
husband of petitioner No.1, who was admitted to the said hospital,
suffered serious injuries due to an assault by another inmate patient. As a
consequence, he unfortunately expired. It is the case of the petitioners
that the incident would not have occurred, but for the negligence on the
part of the respondent authorities and particularly, the said mental
hospital at Yerwada, District - Pune.
3. We have considered the contents of the writ petition and the
documents filed therewith, as also the contents of the affidavit in reply
filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. State authorities and the
aforesaid mental hospital. We find that the contents of the affidavit in
reply clearly demonstrate that the husband of petitioner No.1 died due to
MINAL Digitally signed by
MINAL SANDIP
SANDIP PARAB
Date: 2026.01.21
PARAB 17:21:18 +0530
5_WP6921_17.doc
assault by another patient admitted to the hospital. We also find that the
stand of the respondents that since sudden violent behaviour of the
patient, who assaulted the husband of petitioner No.1, could occur even
on a trivial matter, the claim for compensation cannot be admitted, is an
insensitive stand and needs to be deprecated. The contents of the
affidavit-in-reply itself show that the number of patients at the point in
time when the incident took place were as many as 72 and that, the
number of attendants were very few and they were also performing
separate duties of day time and night time.
4. We also find from the documents filed along with the writ petition
that while there were 72 patients, only 2 doctors, 3 attendants along with
a 'brother' were on duty. This indicates that at the most, there were 4
staff members, who attended to as many as 72 patients and this certainly
was a contributory factor towards the unfortunate incident leading to the
death of the husband of the petitioner No.1.
5. Although it is stated in the affidavit in reply that a departmental
enquiry has been undertaken and that administrative action would be
taken against those found negligent in the matter, the aforesaid action
cannot absolve the respondent authorities from adequately compensating
the petitioners.
6. On the aspect of compensation, the learned AGP relied upon
notification dated 11.04.2014 issued by the respondent State, exercising
power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). A perusal
of the said notification shows that it pertains to a victim compensation
scheme, wherein victim is defined as a person covered under Section
2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said definition shows that, victim is
a person, who has suffered any loss or injury caused by an act or
omission for which an accused person has been charged, and such an
expression of 'victim' includes guardian or legal heir of the victim. We
5_WP6921_17.doc
find that the definition of 'victim' in the aforesaid notification would not
cover the issues raised in the present case. Although we are informed
that an amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid to the petitioners, such an amount
would not amount to just and fair compensation for the extreme
hardships being faced by the petitioners as a consequence of the sudden
death of the husband of the petitioner No.1, who was admitted for
treatment in the respondent mental hospital at Yerwarda, District - Pune.
7. Thus, we are convinced that the petitioners have made out a case
for payment of just and reasonable compensation for the extreme
hardships faced by them. As to what would be such just, fair and
reasonable compensation is a matter that will require further
deliberation.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of
this Court in the case of Rekha Janardan Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 2301. A perusal of the said
judgement shows that it considered a case of custodial death of the
husband of the petitioner. In the said case, the victim died while in
custody of the police. The fact situation therein was different, but
perhaps some guidance can be taken from the manner in which the
Division Bench of this Court proceeded to grant specific amount of
compensation along with interest to the petitioner therein. We are of the
opinion that further assistance would be required in the present case,
because it is a peculiar case of a victim suddenly losing his life while
undergoing treatment in the mental hospital run by the respondents-
State, with sufficient material on record to indicate that if appropriate
number of attendants were on duty, the unfortunate incident could have
been averted.
9. In such a situation, the State is clearly liable to compensate the
petitioners adequately.
5_WP6921_17.doc
10. In view of the above, we call upon the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned AGP to assist this Court in determining
the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners. The learned
counsel may keep a compilation of judgements ready on the next date of
hearing.
11. List the petition for further hearing on 24.02.2026, High on
Board.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
