A civil court in Ahmedabad directed the Gujarat government to pay compensation to a person who was injured in the 1992 riots, more than 25 years after a civil suit was filed to claim compensation.
The state government was directed to pay Rs 49,000 along with simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum for 25 years as compensation to Manish Chauhan, who was injured after being shot by some miscreants on 5 July 1992. After the communal riots that broke out after Rathore Travel Competition.
In a December 30 judgment, the court said Chauhan was injured in firing by miscreants, which was a part of communal tension reflecting “lack of necessary patrolling and security” on the part of the state.
The civil suit, filed by Chauhan in 1996, claimed that he and his brother-in-law were returning home at around 10 pm from VS Hospital, where their mother was admitted, when two persons came on a scooter and left Chauhan on Ashram Road. Shots fired near him. And his brother-in-law was seriously injured.
In 1992, 18-year-old Chauhan was admitted to VS Hospital for 10 days. Chauhan submitted that one bullet hit his groin and the other hit his chest, rendering him unable to do manual labour, reducing his life expectancy and making him physically disabled.
Being the sole breadwinner of his family working in a provision store in Madhupura area, his injury reduced his physical ability and reduced his monthly income from Rs 1,000 to Rs 500.
It was also the case of Chauhan that he spent Rs 10,000 for medical treatment and transportation.
Chouhan primarily argued that “it was the duty of the state to ensure the safety and security of its subjects in the event of communal riots and the state should have taken appropriate measures by calling in the necessary security forces.”
The State had disputed the sustainability of the suit and further submitted that at the relevant time of the incident, the State had paid Rs 1,000 as ex-gratia compensation to Chauhan on 7 July 1992 and in addition to the said amount, the State would not claim any further compensation. is not liable to pay the amount.
City Civil Court Judge MA Bhatti, in his judgment, said the firing was “not due to any personal enmity or rivalry, but because of communal tension, some miscreants opened fire on a public street.”
The court also observed that while the state is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, “any unknown person may come on a scooter armed with a gun and roam on a public street, clearly requiring patrolling and security.” will indicate the lack of the state’s share.”
Chouhan had initially claimed an amount of Rs 1 lakh as compensation, later he increased the claim to Rs 7,01,200 with 18 per cent interest.
However, while deciding on the quantum of compensation, the court took into account the fact that Chauhan could not produce any original certificate of treatment received for 10 days, nor was there any medical evidence or any certificate which would admit it. Yes, Chauhan is hurt. Resulting in permanent physical disability.
,