IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.46260 OF 2017 (GM - RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.VALU, S/O GOMAL CHOWHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SUBBAMMA BUILDING, OLD CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 106 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S.CHANDRAKANTH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, “NYAYA DEGULA, 1ST FLOOR, H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027.
3. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, BENGALURU – 560 009. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1; SMT.B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO RECONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER AND AWARD MAXIMUM SUITABLE COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST UNDER THE KARNATAKA VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME 2011 FOR THE LOSS OF LIFE AND RAPE OF MINOR IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. K.S.Chandrakanth Gowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Smt.B.V.Nidhishree, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 24.3.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent-Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and also the order dated 1.02.2017 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, by which, claim for compensation of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that, the minor daughter of the petitioner was kidnapped on 31.5.2014. The petitioner lodged a complaint on 1.6.2014. Thereupon, the investigation commenced and a charge sheet was filed against the accused. The Juvenile Justice Board passed a judgment on 19.11.2014, by which, the Juvenile-accused was found guilty of commission of the offence. On 3.10.2015, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the 2nd respondent- Karnataka State Legal Services Authority seeking enhancement of compensation. However, his claim was rejected by an order dated 24.3.2016. Thereafter, again he approached the 3rd respondent-District Legal Services Authority, wherein his claim was rejected by order dated 01.02.2017. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the ‘Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme 2011, which was subsequently amended by a Government Order dated 19.9.2013.
5. From perusal of the aforesaid scheme it is evident that for loss of life as well as for rape of a minor, compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- each has to be paid. However, it is submitted that neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.3 have taken note of the aforesaid provisions of the Scheme while passing order on the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation.
6. The aforesaid legal position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records.
8. From perusal of the order it is evident that neither the District Legal Services Authority nor the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority have taken into account the provisions of ‘Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme 2011’ as amended by Government Order dated 19.9.2013 under which, the petitioner is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. However, the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. No cogent reasons have been assigned by respondents No.2 and 3 for rejection of the claim of the petitioner.
9. The impugned orders are therefore quashed and set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh, by a speaking order, in the light of the ‘Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme 2011’ as amended by Government order dated 19.9.2013, for enhancement of the amount of claim of compensation, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp