Smt. Soma Joshi vs State of Meghalaya

Dinesh Maheshwari, CJ.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the respondents, State of Meghalaya and Meghalaya Energy Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), for payment of monetary compensation to her because of the demise of her daughter due to electrocution.

Put in brief, the case of the petitioner is that on 19.02.2012 at around 3.30 p.m., her daughter Ms. Sheetal Joshi, who was 23 years of age and was a student of first year B.A. at Umshyrpi College, Shillong, went to the terrace of the residential building situated at Police Reserve AFR Quarter, Shillong to collect the dried clothes accompanied by one Mrs. Anita Sangma; and both of them got electrocuted on coming in contact with the 11 KV electricity supply line passing dangerously close to the building. The petitioner has averred that the said Mrs. Anita Sangma succumbed to the injuries while her daughter suffered 80% burn injuries wherefor she was hospitalized and during the course of treatment, both her upper limbs had to be amputated. The petitioner has further averred that on 28.03.2012, her husband Shri. Chhabilal Joshi filed an application before the respondent No. 2, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation for payment of adequate compensation and for appointment of the victim on any suitable post, but the request so made evoked no response. The petitioner has pointed out that unfortunately, her daughter expired on 09.07.2012 due to the injuries sustained in electrocution.

The petitioner has also placed on record the copies of the medical bills and has alleged that an amount of Rs. 8,83,163 (Rupees eight lakhs eighty three thousand one hundred and sixty three) was spent on the treatment of her daughter apart from the other expenditure on diet and transportation etc. The petitioner has averred that she lost her only daughter, who had a very bright future, only due to the negligence and improper management of the respondents; but the respondents have failed to award her suitable compensation.

The petitioner has stated the grievance that after the demise of her daughter, another representation was made to the respondent No. 2 but to no avail; and then, it was wrongly sought to be suggested that the petitioner did not lodge any formal complaint with the Corporation although such complaints had indeed been made on 28.03.2012 and 07.11.2012.

Thus, while maintaining that her daughter met with the accident and succumbed to the injuries caused by the 11 KV electricity supply line, which had been installed negligently near the residential building and the wires were hanging so close to the building as to be within the normal reach of an average human being, the petitioner has submitted that a high degree of care was expected of the respondents so as to avoid any such incidence; and having failed to do so, they are liable to pay compensation.

It has been pointed out by the petitioner that in relation to the demise of the other victim of the same incident, Smt. Anita Sangma, a writ petition was preferred in this Court being WP(C) No. 197 of 2012, wherein this Court directed the senior Electrical Inspector to conduct an enquiry and after receiving the enquiry report and after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition on 17.04.2014; and while holding the respondents liable to pay compensation on the principles of strict liability, also directed them to remove the high tension electricity wire lines from the place of residence and particularly from the overhead of the residential houses. It has also been pointed out that in the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2014 (WA No. 33 of 2014), the Division Bench of this Court upheld the order so passed by the learned Single Judge with certain modifications in its judgment dated 22.04.2015; and that the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17002 of 2015 against the judgment and order so passed by this Court was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 29.10.2015.

On behalf of the contesting respondents, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. Even while not disputing the incident in question, the respondents would maintain that the daughter of the petitioner died not due to the electrocution but due to her sickness because the incident occurred on 19.02.2012 whereas the petitioner''s daughter expired much later i.e., on 09.07.2012. The respondents would also submit that the post-mortem report has stated the cause of death of the daughter of the petitioner as being "secondary shock due to dry heat burn" for which, the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondents have further averred that at the site in question, no electricity wire was passing above and through the terrace of the residential quarters in question; and the uncoated electricity high tension wire was laid precisely in conformity with the provisions of the Central Electricity Authority (Electricity Safety) Regulations, 2010 and the applicable guidelines where the horizontal clearance of the nearest conductor from the building was about 1.9 meters, which was more than the specified norms of 1.2 meters; and the wire was clearly beyond the reach of an ordinary human being. According to the respondents, the line in question was laid and charged since 17.04.2009 and was not posing any threat to the safety and security of human life.

As regards the occurrence, the respondents would submit that as per the reports of the senior Electrical Inspector, the victim Ms. Sheetal Joshi had thrown a ten rupees note from the top of the building to a girl on the ground to get the bettlenuts (kwai) but, for the note having got stuck on the projection of the building, the victim Ms. Sheetal Joshi tried to push the same with the help of a 10 to 12 feet long G.I. pipe; and while moving back after pushing the note, she lost control and the pipe she was holding came in contact with the HT conductor resulting in electrocution. Thus, according to the respondents, the electrocution had only been due to the fault and negligence of the petitioner''s daughter.

As regards the representation made on 28.03.2012, the respondents would submit that the petitioner''s daughter expired before consideration of the representation, and hence, the same was not required to be responded to.

As regards the case of Smt. Anita Sangma, the respondents would submit that the petitioner was only trying to take advantage of the said case though not similarly situated, because the petitioner''s daughter died due to her own fault. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not approach the Court earlier and waited for long while knowing that her case was different than the other one.

It may, however be indicated that as regards the averments made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition on the expenditure on treatment and hospitalization of the victim and the bills produced on record at Annexure IV, the respondents have only stated that ''they have no comments to make''.

Learned counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions in conformity with the respective pleadings. The learned counsel for the parties have also referred to the order dated 25.03.2014, as passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 325 of 2012, Smt. Skilinda Iawphniaw v. Meghalaya Energy Corporation, and to the judgment dated 23.04.2014 in WA No. 23 of 2014, the Meghalaya Energy Corporation Ltd and Others v. Smt. Skilinda Inawphiaw, wherein ultimately the compensation was awarded to the wife of the victim, who was 45 years of age and was working as the daily wage labourer; and who got electrocuted while attempting to open the service connection of the PVC wire. The learned counsel have further referred to the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2014 in WP(C) No. 197 of 2012, Shri. Sukendra Sangma v. State of Meghalaya and Others; the judgment dated 22.04.2015 in WA No. 33 of 2014, the Meghalaya Energy Corporation Ltd. v. Shri. Sukendra Sangma; and the order of the Supreme Court dated 29.10.2015 in SLP (C) No. 17002 of 2015, the Meghalaya Energy Corporation Ltd. v. Shri. Sukendra Sangma.

It is an admitted position on behalf of the respondents that the claim for compensation in Shri. Sukendra Sangma''s case was made by the father-in-law of the victim Smt. Anita Sangma, whose husband had predeceased her and she was about 27 years of age with two children and was not engaged in any job. It is also an admitted position that in view of the decision of this Court, which was not interfered with by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, ultimately an amount of Rs. 7,65,000 (Rupees seven lakhs sixty five thousand) has been paid by the respondent Corporation towards compensation in Sukendra Sangma''s case. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, referred to the structured formula under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna and Another v. Gokul and Others: (2013) 16 SCC 585 while submitting that the victim in the present case being a student in 23 years of age, if at all any compensation is to be considered, the same could only be assessed on the basis of notional annual income of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per annum and after making deductions on personal expenditure and even with application of the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation on loss of dependency may not be beyond a sum of Rs. 1,70,000 (Rupees one lakh seventy thousand)

Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, this Court is clearly of the view that for the concluded findings on the same incident, as already reached by this Court against the respondents; and for other indisputable facts, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner also deserves to be quantified.

The basic factual aspect concerning the occurrence is not in dispute that the daughter of the petitioner as also the said Smt. Anita Sangma got electrocuted on 19.02.2012 at 3.30 p.m. Even if the suggestions of the respondents about the daughter of the petitioner using a long GI pipe to push the currency note on the projection of the building and then, getting electrocuted because of the pipe coming into contact with the HG conductor is accepted at its face value, the respondent Corporation cannot escape its responsibility towards the incident for having laid a high voltage transmission line dangerously close to the residential building. In fact, the contention of the respondent Corporation against its liability on the suggestion that there was no negligence on its part has already been considered and rejected by this Court in the categorical findings recorded in the order dated 17.04.2014 as passed in WP(C) No. 197 of 2012. The observations, findings and conclusion in the said order dated 17.04.2014 could be usefully reproduced as under:

"10. In this instant case in hand, it is undisputed that high voltage transmission line was laid overhead of the building and that too un-insulated which is definitely a hazard as well as high risk to public life and safety. It will not be wrong on my part to say that laid down such high voltage lines is a social menace. Unprotected naked high Volt transmission line is always a risk to each and everyone and nobody can deny that. In the State of Meghalaya very often we hear and go through news that many people die due to electrocution. It is also a fact that we see high voltage lines are passing through overhead of many paddy fields, houses, etc which is not at all safe. It is also the duty of the Authority concerned as well as the State Government (respondent) to see that each and every life of a citizen as well as animals are precious and need a protection and they cannot deviate from their responsibility just to say that the distance of the transmission line was maintained as per the provision laid down at Rule 61 of Chapter-3 of the Central Electricity Authority Notification, 2010. In this 21st century also we have seen in many houses even the domestic lines are un-insulated.

In the case of M.C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others: (1987) 1 SCC 395 the Hon''ble Apex Court at Para 31 has pleased to observe that:

"31 The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part".

Similarly, in this case, the argument advanced by the learned Sr. counsel, Mr. K.S. Kynjing for MeECL-respondent that there was no negligence on their part for occurrence of the accident is not acceptable and viable.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and others: (2002) 2 SCC 162 at Para 8 has observed as follows:

"8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions."

In this instant case, I am of the view that the respondents should not have laid high voltage transmission line overhead of the building which has been used for human inhabitant or otherwise should not have allowed to construct a house or quarter for inhabitants beneath the high tension line. From that angle also, respondents cannot escape from their strict liability under law of torts.

I have examined the report of Senior Electrical Inspector dated 25.03.2014, it is worth to mention that such report was prepared only when the court directed i.e. vide order dated 29.01.2014 and issued further reminder vide order dated 27.03.2014. From the report, it is apparent that transmission line laid as per Rule 61 of Chapter-3 of the Central Electricity Authority Notification, 2010.

After considering the pros and cons of the case and the Rules discussed above, as well as the observations made by the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that in this instant case respondents-MeECL cannot escape from their strict liability. As per the intimation of the accident (form and time of service of notice Rule, 2005) the intimation of the accident should have been forwarded within 24 hours of the accident to the inspector by way of telegraph and in writing within 48 hours vide Form-A, but, in this case, it appears that no such intimation was made about the accident/occurrence to the Inspector.

From the report of the Inspector dated 25.03.2014, it is apparent that the enquiry was conducted only after the direction given by this court which also shows that the respondents are least concerned about the life and property of the people of the State. Therefore, I find that the respondents are liable to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for the death of the petitioner''s daughter-in-law (L) Anita Sangma on 09.02.2012 due to electrocution.

It is further ordered that while calculating compensation, the respondents'' No. 1 and 2 to follow the method of calculation as made in the case of Smt. Skilinda Iawphniaw v. the Meghalaya Energy Corporation Ltd and others passed by this court.

Out of the said amount, let 60% be kept in a Fixed Deposit in the name of the 2 (two) minor children for their benefits and future education and let 40% be used for the immediate need of the 2 (two) minor children and their education. Payment of compensation to be paid within 2(two) months from the date of this order failing which 12% interest will be charged per month.

Further, the respondents are directed to remove all high tension electric wire lines from the public places as well as from overhead of the residential houses. Domestic lines or street light lines to be insulated to prevent further damage to any other person or persons, and to prevent untimely death of the residents of the State. Besides that, Rules laid down for the safety measures should be followed strictly as laid down in the different Rules and Act mentioned above.

With this observation and direction, this instant writ petition is allowed and the matter stands disposed of."

The aforesaid findings and conclusions on the liability of the respondent Corporation were endorsed and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 22.04.2015 passed in WA No. 33 of 2014. The Division Bench of this Court reaffirmed the question of liability of the respondent Corporation with reference to the fundamental, and expanded, application of the rules of strict liability was propounded in Rylands v. Fletcher: (1868) 3 HL 330 : (1961-73) AII ER Rep 1. and held, inter alia, as under:

"18. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the celebrated case of M.C. Mehta''s case (Supra), held that ''strict liability'' is not subject to any of the exception which operate vis-a-vis the purpose of law of strict liability under the Rules in Reylands v. Fletcher''s case (Supra). In a case where the enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone; and if any harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident. In the present case, the appellant (respondent in the writ petition) is engaged in inherently dangerous act of stretching/lying overhead H/T livewire through the electric poles and also there is foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activities and principle of strict liability is applicable to them. Therefore, electrocution is a foreseeable risk and as stated above, there is no material pleading regarding taking up of reasonable precaution such as providing guards/disc insulator of the wire of prescribed quality and covering the livewire with insulating material of such quality and thickness as to prevent danger, as provided for such safety measures in the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 in the counter affidavit of the appellant (respondent in the writ petition). Accordingly, in the given case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the defence of the appellant (respondent in the writ petition) that as (L) Anita Sangma was negligent on her part in saving Sheetal Joshi, the appellant (respondent in the writ petition) is not liable for the death of (L) Anita Sangma due to electrocution."

The Division Bench of this Court only modified a part of the directions of the learned Single Judge from sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 18 of the order dated 17.14.2014 to the extent that the Corporation was directed to cover the conductors of the cables passing through the public places where there were residential buildings with appropriate insulating material and that the compensation was to be paid within 6 (six) weeks from the date of judgment and order in appeal. The Division Bench concluded on the matter with the following:

"21. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that under the Doctrine of ''strict liability'', the appellant undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life irrespective of any negligence or callousness on their part is liable to pay compensation. We reiterate the decision of Privy Council in Quebec Rly., Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. case (Supra) that the Company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent.

For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is utterly devoid of merit. However, we modify sub-para 3 of para 18 of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.04.2014 passed in WP(C)No. 197/2012 only to the extent that the appellant shall cover the conductor/cables passing through public places where there are residential buildings and overhead of the residential houses, with insulating material of such quality and thickness to prevent danger and shall efficiently be protected from mechanical damage and supported at sufficiently frequent intervals to prevent untimely death of the residents of the State or members of the public and also that the rule for safety measures as laid down in different Rules and Regulations mentioned in the aforementioned paras should be followed strictly and also that the compensation mentioned in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.04.2014 shall be paid within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.

With the above modification mentioned in the aforesaid para No. 22, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.04.2014 passed in WP(C)No. 197/2012 is upheld and appeal is hereby dismissed."

It is noticed that the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 17002/2015 against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.04.2015 was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 29.10.2015 while keeping the question of law sought to be raised open, to be agitated in an appropriate case. Thus, following the concluded findings of this Court concerning the same incident, the respondents deserve to be held liable to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for the death of her daughter due to electrocution.

The other suggestions by the respondents in their pleadings that the death of the petitioner''s daughter on 09.07.2012 may not be linked with electrocution has only been noted to be rejected; rather, taking of such kind of plea appears to be that of insensitive approach on the part of the Corporation. The petitioner''s daughter as also the aforesaid Smt. Anita Sangma got electrocuted together on 19.02.2012. However, while Smt. Anita Sangma at once succumbed to the injuries, the petitioner''s daughter suffered 80% burns and struggled for life in the hospital where, in the process of treatment, her upper limbs were amputated but she could not survive and ultimately expired on 09.07.2012 i.e., within five months of the incident. The post-mortem report also admittedly stated the cause of her death being "secondary shock due to dry heat burn". From the indisputable fact situation and substantial material on record including several of the medical bills, it is but evident that the hapless victim struggled for life for about four and a half months before meeting with her end. In the given circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the death of the petitioner''s daughter had only been due to electrocution and the respondents remain liable to compensate the petitioner.

Another objection by the respondents about delay in filing of the present petition is also required to be rejected as being unnecessary and irrelevant in the present case. As noticed, the other victim of the same incident expired on the spot and it was her father-in-law who took up the matter for compensation by filing the petition in the year 2012 itself. However, in the present case, the victim remained under treatment and did undergo the sufferings for about four and a half months. In this nature case, mere delay in approaching the Court cannot operate against the right of the claimant, the mother of the victim. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was a fence-sitter waiting for the decision of the other case. Moreover, no third party rights have been created because of the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court. The relief in the case of the present nature cannot be denied only on the ground of delay.

Coming to the question of quantification of compensation, in the first place, a significant factor available on record is that as per the bills produced (Annexure 4), an amount of Rs. 8,83,163/- (Rupees eight lakhs eighty three thousand one hundred and sixty three) was spent on the treatment of the petitioner''s daughter, which included a sum of about Rs. 4.35 lakhs only towards the medicines and there had been other substantial expenditures on room charges, consultation charges, specialist charges, investigations, operation theatre charges, etc. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the expenses so indicated by the petitioner; and, as noticed, the respondents have chosen not to offer any comments as regards such averments and documents.

In the totality of circumstances, this Court is inclined to accept the submission made by the petitioner and to hold the respondents liable to make payment of such expenditure on treatment. Looking to the nature of injuries and long drawn hospitalization of the victim, a further provision for dietary and transportation expenses also deserves to be made. In the totality of the circumstances of this case, it appears just and proper to assess the amount of compensation towards treatment and co-related components at a lump-sum of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs).

Coming to the question of computation of compensation towards the loss of dependency and other components of general damages, it is noticed that in Smt. Skilinda Iawphniaw''s case (Supra) the compensation was awarded by the learned Single Judge at the sum of Rs. 7,56,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty six thousand) in relation to the skilled labourer earning Rs. 140/- per day and being 45 years of age by application of multiplier of 15 while taking multiplicand of Rs. 50,400/- on the assessed monthly income of Rs. 4,200/-. The Division Bench reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) lump sum after making a provision for deduction towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. In Shri. Sukendra Sangma''s case related to the other victim of the present incident, the learned Single Judge did not assess the compensation but directed it to be assessed with reference to the decision in Smt. Skilinda Iawphniaw''s case (Supra) and the Hon''ble Division Bench also did not quantify the amount of compensation. However, it is an admitted position that the respondent Corporation has paid an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand) for demise of Smt. Anita Sangma who was 27 years of age whose husband had predeceased her, and who had left two children behind. The victim of the present case, Ms. Sheetal Joshi was a student in 23 years of age and her mother is the only claimant. The quantification of compensation as regards loss of dependency cannot obviously be made in this matter with reference to the aforesaid decisions in Smt. Skilinda Iawphniaw and Shri. Sukendra Sangma.

The learned counsel for the respondents has cited the decision in the case of Radhakrishna v. Gokul : (2013) 16 SCC 585 but has only referred to the observations made by the Tribunal for making calculation of annual dependency in relation to the victim in 19 years of age while taking the multiplicand at Rs. 10,000/- and the multiplier of 17. However, it is noticed that in the said case, ultimately, the Hon''ble Supreme Court provided for substantial enhancement with reference to the fact that the victim was a student of engineering course and the parents were in 45 and 42 years of age. The Hon''ble Supreme Court concluded on the matter in the following:-

"17. In the present case, the accident occurred on 20-1-2003. The deceased was 19 years old and was a student of Engineering course. The Tribunal determined the compensation by taking his annual income to be Rs. 15,000 and deducted one-third towards personal expenses. In Arvind Kumar Mishra case, the Bench proceeded on the assumption that after completion of the Engineering course, the appellant could have been appointed as Assistant Engineer and earned Rs. 60,000 per annum. However, keeping in view the degree of disability, his estimated earning was taken as Rs. 42,000 per annum and accordingly the amount of compensation was awarded. By applying the same yardstick and having regard to the age of the parents of the deceased i.e. 45 and 42 respectively, we feel that ends of justice will be served by awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 to the appellants."

In the present case, however, the victim was said to be 23 years of age and was a student of Bachelor of Arts course and not of any technical stream. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court is of the view that providing for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) towards annual loss of dependency and application of the multiplier of 17 would meet the ends of justice whereby, the petitioner would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand) towards loss of dependency. The petitioner would further be entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards loss of love and affection of her daughter and another Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards funeral expenses. In this manner, the petitioner is held entitled to secure from the respondent further an amount of Rs. 2,67,000/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty seven thousand) towards the loss of dependency and other damages for untimely demise of her daughter due to electrocution, apart from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) towards long drawn treatment and hospitalization and of her daughter.

Therefore and in view of the above, the petitioner is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 12,67,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs sixty seven thousand) from the respondents. Having regard to the circumstances that this writ petition was filed only on 09.12.2015, the petitioner is not awarded the interest at present but a provision for interest deserves to be made, if the respondents fail to make payment of the awarded amount within stipulated time.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the manner that the petitioner is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 12,67,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs and sixty seven thousand) towards compensation from the respondents. It shall be required of the respondents to make payment of this amount of compensation within 60(sixty) days from today failing which the respondents shall also be liable to make payment of the amount so awarded with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of writ petition and until payment.

No costs.