Calcutta High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the first appellate authority and the subsequent dismissal of her representation and being aggrieved that the amount of ₹7,00,000/- awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was inadequate to cover her treatment and rehabilitation expenses, and the authorities had erred in not enhancing this amount despite her appeal and representation. Shampa Sarkar, J., directed the Member Secretary, West Bengal State Legal Services Authority to review and revisit the issue of enhancement of the compensation of the victim who was subjected to acid attack by her husband in the year 2011.
The petitioner, a victim of an acid attack perpetrated by her husband in 2011, was initially awarded ₹7,00,000 as compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Finding this amount insufficient to cover her extensive treatment and rehabilitation costs, the petitioner sought an enhancement of the compensation by filing a first appeal. This appeal was adjudicated by the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, and was disposed of by an order dated 10-01-2022. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the petitioner subsequently filed a representation, which was also dismissed by the authority without any increase in the compensation amount.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the awarded compensation was insufficient given the extent of her injuries, the costs of her treatment, and the expenses incurred for her rehabilitation into mainstream life. She argued that the appellate authority had failed to consider the full extent of her financial burden and had unjustly dismissed her appeal without adequately considering additional evidence she could have provided to substantiate her claims.
Counsel for the State Legal Services Authority defended its decision, stating that the petitioner had failed to produce any concrete evidence or materials during the appellate proceedings that would justify an increase in the compensation amount. The authority maintained that in the absence of such evidence, the original award of ₹ 7,00,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was deemed appropriate and sufficient.
The Court observed that the first appellate authority had carefully considered the petitioner’s appeal and found no reason to enhance the compensation amount. The Court noted that the petitioner had not provided material evidence to demonstrate that her actual expenses exceeded ₹7,00,000 awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. As a result, the appellate authority’s decision to uphold the original compensation amount was found to be legally sound and free from any procedural errors.
The Court further observed that even when the petitioner made a subsequent representation after the appellate decision, the authority arrived at the same conclusion, reaffirming the adequacy of the compensation awarded.
Thus, the Court held that there was no illegality or impropriety in the decisions of the first appellate authority or the subsequent representation disposal. Therefore, the writ petition could not be sustained, and no orders could be passed in favor of the petitioner based on the current record.
However, the Court provided the petitioner with an opportunity for redress. The Court noted that if the petitioner could gather and present cogent evidence showing that her treatment and rehabilitation costs exceeded ₹7,00,000, she could make a fresh representation before the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal. The Court directed that upon receipt of such evidence, the authority should revisit the matter, giving due consideration to the new evidence provided. Additionally, the Court mandated that the petitioner’s learned advocate be given a hearing during this process.
[Suniti Karmakar v. State of WB , 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7485, decided on 31-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Neil Basu, Mr. D. Banerji, Ms. Utsa Poddar, Mr. Abhrajit Roy Chowdhury … for the Petitioner.
Ms. Soma Chowdhury (Bandhu) … for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7
