Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by an acid attack victim who agreed to sell her property to a third party (accused) in 2017 for seeking directions to the respondents to provide interim compensation amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- as per the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 (‘Scheme’), a Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. allowed the prayer of the victim and directed respondent 4 to award the minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to her after deducting the interim compensation already awarded, within eight weeks.
Background
In the present matter, after the agreement to sale was made, certain disputes arose between both parties and the agreement for the sale of the property did not go through, which resulted into litigation. The victim contended that during the pendency of the litigation, the accused, along with his allies, came to her house on 18-02-2018 and threw acid on her after assaulting her.
The victim mentioned that she ran into the bathroom and climbed on top of the toilet seat to protect her face and in this process, the acid fell on her legs, feet, and clothes. The victim was given first treatment in the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital.
Subsequently, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered on 19-02-2018 and the victim applied to the District Magistrate for interim compensation under the Scheme on 12-10-2018 for the release of interim compensation amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the victim filed the present petition after which the respondents disbursed an interim compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.
It was contended that upon receipt of the complaint, respondent 4 constituted a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘CICB’) and the said Board, after examining the victim, determined that Rs. 30,000/- would be disbursed as interim compensation to her as per the Scheme.
Thus, the victim challenged the compensation that was awarded by the CICB based on its observation that the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- would be suitable in the ‘backdrop of the magnitude of injuries which is reported to be 5-6 percent superficial burns over legs’.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused Clauses 8 and 9 of the Scheme and said that Clause 8 outlines the factors to be considered when determining compensation, while Clause 9 specifies the grounds for denying compensation altogether.
The Court found merit in the contention of the victim that acid attack victims cannot be treated like victims of other injuries and that the Schedule provided a minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to be paid for victims of an acid attack when there is less than 50 percent injury.
The Court said that in a plethora of judgments, the Supreme Court has examined the issue of compensation of an acid attack victim and held that to ensure that the objective of the Scheme is given effect, the victims should be offered adequate rehabilitation and compensation. Further, the Court said that it has also been held that a minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs must be provided to the victims of acid attack for their rehabilitation.
The Court noted that the Schedule to the Scheme mentions that when acid attack victims sustain less than 50 percent injuries, a minimum of Rs. 3 lakhs and a maximum of Rs. 5 lakhs are payable. The Court stated that respondent 4 was at liberty to exercise its discretion to examine what amount is to be paid, provided the amount is between Rs. 3-5 lakhs.
The Court found that the above-mentioned interpretation would be the correct interpretation of the legislative intent of the Scheme especially since it sets out a separate quantification for different types of acid attacks.
The Court perused the minutes of the CICB meetings and said that the CICB was acting on the recommendations made by respondent 4. It was also noted that the CICB had inquired whether an “acid attack” victim could be granted a compensation of less than Rs. 1 lakh.
Further, the Court said that Clause 14 of the Schedule had not been taken into consideration by respondent 4 while recommending the interim compensation and that no findings of a competent court had been placed to evidence that this was not a case of acid attack.
The Court said that by the language of the Scheme and the various judicial pronouncements to discuss the requirement of adequate compensation, it can be inferred that the minimum compensation amount that was set out for the victim was contradictory to the intended purpose of the Scheme of providing adequate rehabilitation and care to acid attack victims. Thus, the Court said that it was unable to agree that the Scheme and the Schedule warranted an alternative interpretation.
Further, the Court stated that the Scheme provided adequate discretion in Clause 9 to decline compensation by giving valid reasons, to safeguard any misuse of the Scheme. However, it was said, that once a decision has been made to award compensation, it cannot be arbitrarily reduced below the minimum threshold that has been provided.
The Court, while disposing of the petition, allowed the prayer of the victim and directed respondent 4 to award the minimum compensation amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs after deducting the interim compensation already awarded, within eight weeks.
[X v. Government (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8179, Decided on 06-11-2024]
Judgment authored by Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — Advocate Sanjana Srikumar
For Respondents — ASC Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate Arjun Basra, Advocate Aayush Agarwala
