Case law referred—
(1) Amar Lal's case S.B Cr. Rev. 65/83, decided on 6-5-87==(1987 RLW 280)
(2) Shani's case SB. C. Misc. Appeal No. 207/84, decided on 13-5-87.
(3) Chand Kanwar v. Mannaram (1986 A.C.J 269)
(4) Mst. Pista Devi Aggarwal v. R.S.R.T.C (1986 A.C.J 23)
Advocates Appeared
S.R Singhi, for Appellant in First Appeal No. 12/79 and for Respondent in First Appeal No. 38/79
M.C Bhandari, for Respondent in First Appeal No. 12/79 and for Appellant in First Appeal No. 38/79.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.M Lodha, J.:— “Rape” or “Slap” on preamble — Justice social, economic is the question? Honey Moon-Grave Yard valued at 500/- doll & that too, Kindness & charity of Socialist State. Let us now read Ex. 9.
“The boat tragedy which took place in Nakki Lake at Mount Abu on 22nd April, 1973, has shocked us all. It is a great misfortune that Shri Girish Roopani and Shrimati Rashmi W/o Shri Girish Roopani, members of your family, were the victims of this tragedy. The Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Shri Barkatullah Khan, has expressed his concern over this mishap and has desired me to convey his heartfelt condolences to you and the entire bereaved family. He has also kindly sanctioned ex-gratia grant of Rs. 500/- to each of the family of the deceased as a token of deep sympathy to the bereaved family. Accordingly I am enclosing herewith a Demand Draft amounting to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only for the same.
Kindly acknowledge receipt.
Yours faithfully,
(J.M KHAN)”
2. In Amarlal's judgment (1) and Mst. Shani's decision, (2) I have depicted graphically Automobile Bomb and compared it with Atom Bomb casualties of Nagasaki on statatiscal bedrock of road accident deaths.
3. And now Boat tragedy in Lake is the pivot of these cross appeals.
4. Nakki lake of Mount Abu in Rajasthan being hill resort of Rajas than became the site of a ghastly tragedy when two young newly married couples, who had come to celebrate the marriage by the traditional honeymoon, suddenly found themselves in the clutches of death. The motor boat provided by the Municipal Board and not by a private agency, on payment of hire which was meant for pleasure and enjoyment, became the grave-yard and at least to newly married couple with one other woman; in all five died in the accident caused on account of the sinking of the motor boat in the lake on 22.4.73
5. Girish wedded Rashmi having come from London all the way at the threshold of his career as Chartered Accountant in England. After the wedding on 19.4.73 at Rajkot in Gujarat the newly married couple came to Mount Abu, little knowing that the honeymoon would turn into a death trap for both of them.
6. The above facts are not in dispute and it is common ground that this tragedy did take the toll of five persons, including Girish C.A and Rashmi Graduate. The claim for two human lives made in the lower court was Rs. 2,50,00/- which; as would be obvious from the latter discussion which would hereinafter follow; was grossly inadequate, even for Girish C.A but the lower court further curtailed it to Rs. 64,800/-.
7. The irony is that the Municipal Board, yet could not feel satisfied; being relieved of the major part of claim of compensation, by a dual blunder committed by the claimant as well as the Court; and has filed this appeal, before this court for rejecting the claim as a whole. The claimant unfortunate bereaved father of the deceased Girish has also filed the appeal, but even in appeal the amount claimed is too inadequate and shows the conservative approach, about the valuation of the human lives in terms of the compensation claims in this country.
8. Mr. Singhi appearing for the Municipal Board had pressed two points in support of his appeal. Firstly, according to him, it was not the negligence of the boat driver or any infirmity in the condition of the motor boat but the married couple were enjoying by trying to blow in the water of the Nakki lake and in that process, they upset the balance of the boat and thus, they invited their own death by their negligence. The second limb of submission of Mr. Singhi is that they had insurance for Rs. 1,33,000/- and that claim they have got from the insurance company. This amount should have been adjusted.
9. Mr. Bhandari appearing for the claimant has realised that at the time of the filing of the suit as well as the filing of the appeal, the claim made itself is grossly inadequate and, therefore, he prayed that this Court should exercise its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C for increasing the claim suitable, as the present one is a case of social welfare legislation and the well known principles of social justice for providing relief to the bereaved in such cases should be invoked.
10. Mr. Bhandari catalogued before me serious infirmities and mistakes which tantamount to gross negligence on the part of the Municipal Board in putting this defective and unfit motor boat into the lake for human use. According to him, this could have been appropriate for carrying some cargo but not human beings. He invited my attention to the statement of the Mechanical Inspector of the Govt. Shri Daulat Raj Bhandari, who appeared as witness No. 3 and was working as District Transport Officer at Pali when he was examined in support of his above submission.
11. Mr. Bhandari vehemently opposed the second submission of Mr. Singhi. According to Mr. Bhandari, the negligence was on the part of the Municipal Board-Abu, for putting such a boat which was of afault which one can imagine, can happen in a motor boat and was not even certified to be fit to be used as a motor boat. Secondly, he argued that so far as the insurance payment is concerned, there can be no adjustment or set off because the insurance was independent. The case would have been different if the motor boat would have been insured by the Municipal Board and the insurance company would have taken the liability for this compensation.
12. Mr. Bhandari has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Chand Kanwar v. Mannaram (3). In para No. 14 of Chand Kanwar's case (3), it has been held as under:—
“Similarly, the payment of insurance and gratuity cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded in the accident claim cases as held in the following decisions:
(1) Krishna Sehgal v. U.P State Road Trans. Corpn., 1983 ACJ 619 (Allahabad);
(2) Avon Deluxe Trans. Co. v. Snehlatha Selvamani, 1982 ACJ 370 (Delhi);
(3) Amarjit Kaur v. Vanguard Insurance Co., 1981 ACJ 495 (Delhi);
(4) Bhagwanti Devi v. Ish Kumar, 1975 ACJ 56 (Delhi);
(5) L.I.C of India v. L.R's of deceased Naranbhai, 1973 ACJ 226 (Gujrat);
(6) Sood and Company v. Surjit Kaur, 1973 ACJ 414 (P&H);
(7) Hoshiarpur National Trans v. M.A.C.T, Hoshiarpur, 1980 ACJ 83 (P&H).
In view of this, the amount of Rs. 41,341.20p, and Rs. 29,160/- deducted cannot be sustained.”
13. I have given a very thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the relevant record referred to by them. The present one is a case where, in my opinion, gross negligence, dereliction of duty of the Municipal Board, Mount Abu in putting such a boat in Nakki Lake for use by tourists has been conclusively proved. The District Transport Officer, Shri Daulat Raj Bhandari in his statement has stated by supporting his report Ex. 29 that no licence of the motor boat was shown to him. This motor boat had no fitness certificate. He has never seen such a boat being utilised for taking passengers or tourists in a lake.
14. The Govt. expert has unequivocally stated that such a boat can only be utilised for taking cargo or goods and in precise words, which may be extracted for ready reference-
15. He has further stated that Nakki Lake water is of great depth. He has sweared that there were no safety belts and light in the boat. Is it not a pity that such cargo Boat was allowed to ply by the State, abating this tragedy.
16. Mr. Bhandari rightly pointed out that even statutory requirement of getting the fitness certificate according to the provisions of the Rajasthan Regulation of Boating Act, 1956, were flagrantly disregarded, clearly contravened and grossly violated in the present case. Section 3 reads as under:—
“After the expiry of six months from the commencement of this Act, no person shall ply a boat in any river or lake, whether for pleasure or for hire or otherwise, except under the authority, and in accordance with the conditions of a certificate of fitness in respect of that boat granted by the prescribed officer or authority in the prescribed manner after an inspection of the boat with reference to the prescribed matters.”
A certificate of fitness is, therefore, a must for a boat to be plied in a lake or a river and plying of a boat in a lake without a certificate and without fulfilling the condition of such certificate in addition, is itself the best proof of gross negligence.
17. Such a certificate of fitness is to be granted by the Mechanical Inspector as per rule 4 of the Rajasthan Regulation of Boating Rules, 1957 and for which a detailed procedure is prescribed. Rule 4 reads as under:—
“4. Certificate of fitness — (a) A certificate of fitness shall be in Form ‘A’ and shall be granted by the Mechanical Inspector of the area.
(b) The fee for grant and renewal of the certificate of fitness shall be Rs. 10/- and Rs. 5/- respectively in respect of every boat.
(c) An application for obtaining fitness certificate shall be made in Form ‘B’ and for renewal in Form ‘C’ to the Mechanical Inspector in whose functional area the boat is kept, a month before the expiry of the period of validity.
(d) A certificate of fitness shall be valid for a period not exceeding six months and shall be renewable after the said period.
(e) An application for transfer of ownership will be made in Form ‘D’ with a fee of Rs. 5/-.
(f) Every case of transfer of ownership shall be intimated by the Mechanical Inspector to the Licensing Officer concerned in Form ‘E’.
(g) The Mechanical Inspector shall intimate full details of the action taken under sections 5 and 6 of the Act immediately to the Licensing Officer concerned.”
Obviously, according to clause (d), such a certificate is required to be renewed after every six months.
18. That the Municipal Board of a hill station like Mount Abu was either ignorant of these provisions or it deliberately violated and disregarded them in a contemptuous manner, is to be lamented. It is unthinkable and unbelievable that in the year 1973, such criminal negligence and dereliction of duty and contempt of law and human lives can be allowed by the Govt. and its officers; more so at a Hill station like Mount Abu or where the Board provides attraction to tourists in the form of a joy ride in a boat in Nakki lake, surrounded by beautiful hills and scenic beauty. No evidence of expert has been produced by the Municipal Board to show that if the deceased in the motor boat had tried to touch the water of the lake it can prove fatal and the boat can sink on account of that.
19. I, am therefore, of the opinion that the negligence rather gross criminal negligence of the boat driver and the boat owner is proved in the present case beyond all reasonable doubt which normally is not required in a case of compensation because it is not a criminal case.
20. The absence of licence and fitness certificate for this boat only exhibits that the Municipal authorities had a false impression that being a local authority, it had got a licence to do everything even by violation of law, as it is above law. They never knew what Maharshi Manu said-“Law is King of Kings.”
21. Now coming to the question of compensation, I would like to have an assessment of the compensation, irrespective of the claim made and the adjudication made by the lower court, as I find that approach of the lower Court is fallacious & perverse and it could not see new horizon and dimension of ‘Social Security & Welfare Jurisprudence, newly innovated by Indian Courts.
22. I am inclined to accept Mr. Bhandari's contention that when as Articles apprentice, Girish was getting 3000 pound; after becoming Chartered Accountant in England, Girish would have earned 3 to 5 times more. In letter Ex. P dated 29.12.72 Girish wrote to his parents:—
“I earn about £3000 per year. Even, if I am married, I can support you and those who are in School & Colleges. I have written to Hargovindkaka about my idea of buying a House.”
23. It is significant that Rashmi was also graduate and in England she would have earned sufficient amount and in any case, she would have never required financial support.
24. Girish would have easily sent at least Rs. 3000/- per month for father, brother & sisters support and his income would have increased every year.
25. The lower Court calculation in this respect is entirely wrong. A Chartered Accountant can easily earn upto 70 years and, therefore, even after meeting his own expenditure, Girish & Rashmi, would have contributed about 10 lakhs in the whole of life for support to family. The rating of Rashmi's support to claimants as ‘O’, only exhibits our “O” approach to values of women, but I would not discuss it further here as it is avoidable.
26. For lump sum, deduction is not permissible, as held in Mst. Pista Devi Aggarwal v. R.S.R.T.C (4) by me, which is based on several other decisions.
27. It is common ground and not in dispute that Girish a young well educated, energetic Bombay Graduate and London Chartered Accountant was earning three thousand Ponds per annum, which was equal to Rs. 5000/- P.m at that time in the year 1972 in England where he has done his accountancy. He was only of 27 years of age on the date of his death by this accident. He married on 19.4.73 at Rajkot. His father, who was 63 years of age at the time he was examined is still living.
28. Normally a young Chartered Accountant well qualified from England and who was earning Rs. 5000/- P.m as stipend at that time in 1972 would reach the height in his professional income upto Rs. 25000/- to 30,000/- P.M even if he is a mediocre after 5 to 10 years and would earn further higher income in later years. The normal expectancy of his life would be 70 years, in view of family history.
29. Ignoring all above, even if a most conservative estimate, the expectancy of the benefit to the father and Girish's five brothers and two sisters is calculated, it would be Rs. 3000/- P.m after meeting out his normal expenditure and expenditure to his family. This Rs. 3000/- for 30 years taking the age expectancy of 60 years so far as income is concerned would come to an amount of rupees more than ten lacs. (34 yrs. × 12 months × 3000 Rs. = 1224000).
30. Even if we reduce it to half on account of any reasons, it would be five to six lacs. The tragedy is that the claim has been made only for Rs. 2,50,000/- and there also the appeal has not been filed in this Court for it but the Board has come out for a further reduction. The claimant wants to increase it by Rs. 1,00,000/- more, which means Rs. 1,64,000/- only.
31. Should the Courts be silent spectators and feel helpless and important by not redressing injustice and by tolerating such grave injustice, simply because due to the human values for compensation which could be valued and imagined by the Advocate drafting the petition were too low or the appellant's inability to pay the court fees which may be a more tangible ground for putting the reduced claim. Inadequate claim has been made at both levels of the original court and the appeal.
32. I have repeatedly observed in various decisions e.g Pista Aggarwal's case (4) and Rao Dheer Singh's case that in adjudicating compensation cases, the claim case should not be considered like those of easement or mortgage or property dispute. For social welfare legislation of a State wedded to socialism and the Constitution's focus is on social justice not only in the preamble, but in directive principles which are to be enforced by passing legislations like Fatal Accidents Act or Motor Vehicles Act or other alike social welfare statutes, the approach should be humanistic, liberal nontechnical and equitable.
33. I get support for this opinion from the Constitution itself which has further been strengthened by various decisions of the apex Court and the various High Courts. While acting as watch dogs of the Constitution, the Courts should act and apply and adjudicate by adopting an activist role in judicial judgments and in interpretation of the social welfare legislation.
34. Compensation in a social welfare State is not a charity or a doll. The State is a creation of the Constitution which means the people, as the preamble of the Constitution, says that the Constitution has not been given by any other authority but taken by the people of India themselves. Since that Constitution itself guarantees from preamble to directive principles and other legislations made under it for social welfare & security, therefore, the Court acting in such cases should not treat themselves as simply a ‘civil or criminal court’ with fetters of technicalities and East India Co.'s time precedents.
35. I would have expected the Municipal Board to have offerred compensation immediately at least of a few lacs, if not of ten lacs, as the plying of the boat in Nakki lake is not philanthropic proposition, but a commercial proposition, as shown above.
36. It is a pity that a boat meant for cargo or goods was put for commercial benefit in the lake to be converted into a ‘grave yard’ instead of enjoying honeymoon. The newly wedded Girish C.A who has come all the way from London to Rajkot and then to Mount Abu to have a pleasure ride in the boat, never knew that the rule of Jaw and respect and obedience of law, is obeyed in gross disobedience, and clear contravention, flagrant disregard and gross contempt of the laws of the land, by even local authorities.
37. The filing of the appeal by the Municipal Board only adds insult to injury and not only exhibits scant regard for the law and the judicial verdicts but further disrespect to human values and human lives. Viewed with above background when the estimate of compensation, which the family of the deceased Girish would have received, it would have been more than 10 lacs and not less than five lacs. 1 feel that the discussion of the adjustment about the compensation received from insurance accidents claim is more of academic nature because even if it is adjusted, it would not have been more than a Rs. 1,33,000/- out of Rs. 5,00,000/-; which are calculated as the most conservative estimate which can be made for a normal Chartered Accountant's benefits to the family who dies at age of 26, at the threshold of his career.
38. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that the insurance claim cannot be adjusted or set off normally. The case would have been different if the boat would have been insured and for that the insurance company would have taken the liability or liability would have been fastened by the Court or Tribunal against the insurance company, as happens in cases of motor car or truck accidents, where the vehicles are insured.
39. The Municipal Board who had never thought of having a licence and fitness certificate for a boat for taking passengers and had the audacity, absurdity and silliness of putting the cargo and goods boat, in the lake for human beings; would never think to have an insurance of the boat to safeguard the claim of some unexpected tragedy which may happen inspite of all care and caution, may be on account of such negligence of the driver of the boat, it is also on record that the driver had no licence.
40. Now the crucial question which emerges for decision is that inspite of the fact that the claimant has not filed an appeal for such an increase, the Court suo-moto should grant the decree in favour of the claimant. It is expected in the sphere of social welfare legislation and an era injudicial activism for providing benefit to the bereaved family, I am firmly of the opinion that the Courts should not only suo-moto act in such matters but provide relief.
41. The present Chief Justice Hon'ble J.S Verma entertained a letter in M.P, in respect of Motor Vehicle Accident Claim. (See page 66 Report of Review Committee to review Legal Aid Programme and Lok Adalats held in Rajasthan, presented to Hon'ble R.N Mishra, Judge, Supreme Court of India, 1987).
42. I am justified in mentioning that in this age where the letters and post cards, on which no court fee is paid and no formality of a suit or a writ petition are fulfilled, are entertained, then the present case cannot be worst than that, because even now we can impose condition of court fees realisation from the claim, which is being allowed and the State interest to that extent can be safeguarded. We should also not forget that it has been said not only by ordinary jurists but even by Apex persons, like C.J Hon'ble R.S Pathak that the court fee should be abolished and justice should not be auctioned. (See C.J Pathak's H. Pradesh Speech).
43. Even the framers of the Civil Procedure Code who hardly had any concept of social justice in that age, had enacted under Order 41 Rule 33 that even if the appellant may not have made a perfect claim but the Courts should not become silent spectators and should not feel importance to give relief to one who deserves. The potentiality of the Courts to deliver justice according to the needs of the litigants has been recognised by Order 41 Rule 33 even in 1908 when Civil Procedure Code was framed.
44. 1, would, therefore enhance the compensation of this accident, on account of the negligence of the driver and the owner of the motor boat in Nakki lake to Rs. 2,50,000/-, though it is again a conservative estimate of the compensation. I have taken this figure because of the various reasons given above including the possibility of the insurance adjustment although, I have taken the view otherwise and further because the claimants in this case are not sons and daughters and wife but father who has got five sons and two daughters who are sisters and brothers of the deceased Girish. All these factors are weighing in my mind for reducing it which normally should have been 10 lacs to Rs. 2,50,000/-.
45. Before parting with this judgment, I must mention that the grant of Rs. 500/- each by the Govt. as exgratia payment to the father of Girish and father-in-law of Rashmi is yet another example of the serious de-valuation of the human values rather absolute ignorance about the appreciation and complete lack of evaluation of the human life of a normal Chartered Accountant who at the age of 26 died on account of this boat accident and that too on account of the serious negligence and serious faults of the Municipal Board, Mount Abu and of the State.
46. The State Govt. pays various financial amount in the form of aid and other facilities to the Municipal Board. The Act provides that the motor boats should be inspected periodically, and absence of inspection or non-inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector is a serious omission of the State functionaries. That the State inspite of all this, paid Rs. 500/- only exhibits rather contempt, disregard, lack of consciousness & evaluation of human life in our country, which have great got Constitution, which have incorporated ‘social justice’ in its preamble. This face is to be assessed by the jurists and Executive mainly not by this Court.
47. What a poor homage we are paying to the “Justice, Social, Economic & Political” our Preamble can be appreciated by insulting payment of Rs. 500/- each as per Ex. 9 extracted above to Honey Moon young couple of a England oriented C.A and a Graduate partner when incase of accident by Aeroplanes each one would have got 1 lakh straight.
48. Empty words of Municipal Board Chairman of Sympathy of CM. exhibited in “kind doll of 500/- each” may be read and re-read for having an in depth study of our ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE” Cofgin.
“F.J MOTISHAW,
CHAIRMAN
MUNICIPAL BOARD
MOUNT ABU
Dated 24-4-73
D.O No.
Dear Shri Harilal
On behalf of Municipal Board, Mount Abu, I offer my profound sympathy to you and your family on the sad demise of Shri Girish & Smt. Rashmi in the unprecedented Motor Launch mishap occurred on 22-4-73 (the first in the history of Mount Abu).
We know you can hardly bear this irreparable loss and the terrible void made in your life. And I know mere words cannot console you but I cannot resist sending you a few lines of our heartfelt sympathies.
May Almighty console you and give peace to the dear departed souls.
Yours sincerely
Sd/- 24/4
(F.J MOTISHAW)
Shri Harilal Roopani (Jain)
Near Alfred High School,
Roopani Niketan, Rajkot,
RAJKOT.”
49. The cruel joke then is that the counsel for Board even did not admit the letters of sympathy, and exhibited apathy to such payment of 500/- even & wording sympathy. Could there be any worst cruelty? Yet another fact?
50. The present case amply illustrates the truth of the maxim “Justice delayed is denied”. The precious life of the young Chartered Accountant and his wife was lost in 1973, and the adjudication of the claim took 5 years in the Court of District Judge, Sirohi. These appeals of 1979 are now being decided in August, 1987 but that too on account of special interest taken by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.P Thakkar of Supreme Court, who sent a letter on April 29, 1987 to this Court which reads as under:—
“PRIVATE SECRETARY TO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.P THAKKAR JUDGE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI
April 29, 1987.
The Registrar,
High Court of Rajasthan,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan State.
Dear Sir,
As desired by His Lordship, I enclose herewith the representation dated 24-4-1987 received from one Shri Harilal S. Rupani, presently aged 74, of Rajkot, praying for expedition of an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1979) against an award for compensation rendered in the context of the death of his son and daughter-in-law caused in a motor vehicle accident 14 years back, in 1973 (22-4-1973), which is pending since about 8 years (1979). I am desired by His Lordship to request you to place this Public Interest Petition before the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanubhai Bhrambhatt v. State of Gujarat reported in 1987 (1) Scale P. 366 and Judgments Today Vol. 2 No. 43 (Feb. 20, 1987).
Yours faithfully,
(G. NATA-RAJAN)
Private Secretary to
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.P
Thakkar.”
Earlier the old father of Shri Girish repeatedly requested this Court in 1984, 1985 & 1986 to expedite the hearing of the appeals, but those letters-cum-applications were generally filed by the office.
51. It is only when the appellant approached Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.P Thakkar for expediting the case by sending a representation, that a letter of Secretary of Hon'ble Justice Mr. Thakkar was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. J.S Verma, who directed on 20th May, 1987 that the case may be heard immediately after vacation, Inspite of the above, the proverval adjournment practice of the counsel representing both the sides, prevented an early hearing on opening of the vacations as adjournment was taken on 2nd July, 1987 for 9th July, 1987, but was not in fact heard.
52. It may be mentioned that an earlier order passed by this Court on 20th July, 1984 for hearing it on 3rd September, 1984 never materialised. Such is the pathetic chaotic conditions in which even social welfare legislation cases are not taken up expeditiously and in priority by the Judicial Courts resulting in shaking of faith of people in Judiciary.
53. Several aggrieved victims of injustice are waiting for their turn and it is high time that some priorities may be fixed so that the cases of compensation for accidents, workmen compensation, civil servants, suspension and dismissals, pensions and wages, provident funds and reinstatements, bonus and gratuity, in addition to other categories, to be fixed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, can be decided in priority.
54. So far as the accident's compensation cases are concerned, efforts at Jaipur Bench has resulted in disposal of all complete Single Bench appeals upto 1985 or so. The same pattern can be followed without any difficulty at Jodhpur also.
55. The occasion for receiving a letter from Judge of the Supreme Court to expedite hearing on failure of this Court in disposal after an order in 1984, should not further arise and proper steps should be taken in this direction, after obtaining instruction from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. But for the interest taken Hon'ble Mr. Justice Thakkar and direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. J.S Verma of this Court in May, 1987 for this case, even this appeal's disposal would have awaited another 5 years, as we are hearing 1974 appeals only now in 1987.
56. Since the Motor Boats plying in lakes and canals' and rivers of Rajas-than are to be governed by the regulations referred above, which requires six monthly inspection by the Govt. officers, before giving fitness certificate, but as in this in the present case this Act and Rules are being obeyed only in disobedience, the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan should ensure that now in future the requirement of fitness certificate is to be strictly implemented and the defaulters treated suitably by proper preventive and punitive action.
57. To start with the police authorities of the areas concerned should be directed to forthwith stopping of “motor boats” which have not obtained fitness certificate within six months of their checking of the police or transport authorities as the case may be.
58. Copies of this judgment should be sent to the Chief Secretary, Transport Secretary, Irrigation Secretary and Director General of Police, Secretary to Local Self Govt. & Tourism for immediate compliance. A copy may also be sent to Secretary to Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.P Thakkar, in view of his letter mentioned above.
59. The Registrar should place this judgment before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court also for consideration of the question of fixation of priorities for listing. The Secretary Local Self Govt. should also find out who was the Administrator/Executive Officer and the Secretary of the Municipal Board Mount Abu, in 1973 at the relevant time whose dereliction of duty in permitting Motor Boats to ply without fitness certificate, resulting in this ghastly tragedy. After fixing the responsibility, disciplinary action should also be taken against the erring Officers.
60. Since the appellant has not paid court fees in this Court, on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the same should be realised now from the Municipal Board, Mount Abu, respondent and deposited in the Court.
61. Consequently, while the appeal of the Municipal Board is dismissed, the appeal of the claimant Harilal is accepted and further invoking the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C as mentioned above, the compensation is increased from Rs. 64,300/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-
62. The claimant would get costs throughout from the Municipal Board. The amount awarded by this Court should be paid within a period of three months by the Municipal Board, Mount Abu failing which the claimant would get interest @ 12% from the date of the suit till the date of realisation.
63. Harilal would get costs of both these appeals and the original suit from Municipal Board, Mount Abu.
Comments