PARASNATH TIWARI AND ANR. versus CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 635 · Decided: 11-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 635 
PARASNATH TIWARI AND ANR. 
v. 
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2010) 
JANUARY 11, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Compensation - Death of CRPF constable while in 
service - Deceased was only earning member of the family C 
-
Mental agony and financial difficulties to parents of 
deceased, who were purportedly denied proper information as 
regards cause of the death for long period - They filed writ 
petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs - High Court 
granted compensation of Rs. 1 lakh - On appeal, held: D 
Considering the facts, and in view of the escalating cost of 
living, it is appropriate that the compensation amount be 
enhanced to Rs.2 lakhs. 
A CRPF constable died while in service, when a 
fellow constable on sentry duty, allegedly mistook him for E 
an intruder in the house of the Development 
Commissioner and as a measure of safety, fired upon him 
resulting in his death. Appellants, the parents of the 
deceased, filed writ petition in High Court seeking for 
direction to the respondents to pay them compensation 
F 
of Rs.5 lakhs on account of mental agony and loss 
suffered by them due to death of their son while in 
service. 
The High Court came to a finding that for more than 
20 years, the appellants had been denied proper G 
information as regards the cause of the death of their son, 
consequent to which they suffered mental agony and 
financial difficulties for a long period, and allowed the writ 
petition directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1 
635 
H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 O] 1 S.C.R. 
A lakhs to the appellants as compensation. 
B 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the 
appellants that the amount of Rs.1 lakh was too meagre 
an amount to be paid for loss and mental agony caused 
to the appellants. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The son of the appellants was working in 
a sensitive area. A fellow constable, who was in the 
sentry duty at the residence of the Development 
C Commissioner, Aizwal, mistook the appellant's son as an 
intruder to the house and as a measure of safety, he fired 
upon the appellant's son. On facts, it turns out to be a 
case of accident and wrong identity. However, the death 
of son of the appellants, is definitely not only a personal 
D loss to the family but also financial. The deceased was a 
victim of an unfortunate incident and this caused a heavy 
loss and mental agony to the family members of the 
deceased. That being the position, the amount of Rs.1 
lakh directed to be paid to the appellants towards 
E compensation and damages Is meagre. [Paras 11 and 12) 
[640-D-H] 
2. The victim was a Constable and, therefore, there 
would have to be some surmises and conjectures in 
arriving at the amount of compensation payable by the 
F 
respondents to the appellants. Appellant no.1 is an old 
man and th~ deceased was the only earning member of 
the family. The earnings of the deceased were a source 
of sustenance for the family. Besides, loss of a son at 
such a young age creates a void in the family, which 
G cannot be filled up by making payment of any 
compensation. Considering these facts and being alive 
to the escalating cost of living, it is appropriate to 
enhance the amount of compensation fixed by the High 
Court. The respondents are directed to pay to the 
H 
PARASNATH TIWARI v. CENTRAL RESERVE 
637 
POLICE FORCE 
appellant an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation 
A 
Instead of Rs.1 lakh fixed by the High Court. [Para 13) 
[641-B-EJ 
Charanjit Kaur (Smt.) v. Union of India and Others, (1994) 
2 sec 1 distinguished. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1994) 2 SCC 1 
distinguished 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 140 
of 2010. 
B 
c 
From the Judgement & Order dated 11.7.2006 of the High 
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition Nos. 554 of 
2001 & 2407 of 1996. 
Sarabjeet Dutta, l.J. Yadav, P.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
Indira Jaising, ASG, Binu Tamta, S.N. Tedol, Sushma Suri 
D 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. In this appeal the scope for consideration is restricted 
E 
only to actual quantum of compensation payable to the 
appellants. The appellants herein filed a Writ Petition in the High 
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur seeking for a direction to the 
respondents to pay to them compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs on 
account of mental
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.