Union Of India And Another vs Mohammad Ashraf Rather And Others

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J

1/- By the present appeal, the appellant, Union of India, for short UOI, challenges and seeks the setting aside of the Judgment dated 12.10.2017, for short impugned judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, in a writ petition, OWP no. 1947/2015, titled Mohammad Ashraf Rather v. Union of India and others, inter-alia on the grounds that the impugned judgment is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.

2/- This Court, on 10th September, 2018, has stayed the further proceedings in the contempt petition no. 39/2018 arising out of OWP no. 1947/2015 with a stipulation that the entire awarded amount is deposited before the Registry in terms of order dated 12.10.2017 within two weeks and on being deposited the amount be kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of six months.

3/- In compliance to the direction dated 10th September, 2018, the appellants AMJAD deposited AHMADLONEan amount of Rs. 14,27,326/- with the Registry out of which an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was ordered to be released in favour of the respondent in terms of order dated 11th July, 2019.

4/- Subsequent thereto the Writ Record was called for in terms of order dated 7th September, 2021 and the same is on record.

5/- A brief relook at the events leading to the filing of the present appeal is imperative, thus:

6/- One Mohammad Ashraf Rather S/o Mohammad Shaban R/o Kadlabal, Pampore, was allegedly working as Labourer after having been hired as such by the Officer Commanding, 15 Corps-appellant no. 2 and while working as such at 15 Corps Army, Badami Bagh, Cantonment Srinagar,on 2nd May, 2002, he got injured in a bomb blast incident and sustained multiple injuries which resulted in amputation of both of his arms. Thereafter, the respondent approached the respondents for payment of compensation which was denied, compelling him to file a writ petition before the Writ Court, being OWP no. 1947/2015, seeking direction upon the respondents to pay him Rs. 57,80,000/- as compensation on account of the disability suffered by him while doing the hired work for appellant no. 2/ respondent no. 2. He had further sought a direction upon the respondents to arrange for the artificial arms and to enable him to undergo the plastic surgery of mouth and face.

7/- The appellants/ respondents had appeared and filed their reply before the Writ Court denying the contention of the respondent/ petitioner of having been hired by them. It was stated by the appellants before the Writ Court that the respondent/ petitioner was hired by a private contractor for the job.

8/- The Learned Single Judge, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the matter, has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants/ respondents therein to pay an amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs to the respondent/ petitioner therein along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition.

9/- Aggrieved of the impugned judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal to seek reversal of the same.

10/- We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the material available on the file. 11/- Considered the submissions made.

12/- What appears from the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned judgment is bad in law and facts, therefore, unsustainable and liable to be set-aside as such, seeks reversal of the same. The primary ground taken in support of such plea, by the appellants, is that there was no employer-employee relationship existing between the appellants and the respondent as the respondent had not been hired by the appellants, therefore, there was no scope for invoking the Doctrine of vicarious liability by the Writ Court.

13/- The Writ Court after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, and while appreciating the fact that the respondent/ petitioner has lost both of his arms, therefore, incapacitated to even attend to himself not to speak of looking after his family, directed for payment of an amount Rs. 12.00 lacs as compensation in favour of respondent/ petitioner while taking Rs. 48,000/- as loss of income per annum i.e. Rs. 4,000/- per month, held that the petitioner is deprived of the total future loss of income as Rs. 12.00 lacs while multiplying the annual income with multiplier 25. This way the appellants/ respondents have been directed to pay respondent/ petitioner an amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition.

14/- The impugned judgment does not appear to be deviating from the settled position of law. We feel that the lowest possible income i.e. Rs. 4000/- per month has been taken into consideration while dealing with the future loss of the respondent/ petitioner. Therefore, no interference in the matter is called for.

15/- In view of above, the appeal being without any merit, is dismissed along with all CMs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. The respondent shall be entitled to the amount already directed by the Writ Court in terms of the impugned judgment minus the amount already paid.

16/- Writ Records be detagged and sent back along with the copy of this order forthwith.

17/- The appeal, as such, is dismissed on the above lines. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.