I NTl v. St at eofHaryanaand ot hers

Learned counsel for t he subm it st hatt hepet it ioiler cannot claim under t he writ j urisdict ionof t his Court This however st ands set t led by t he Honble ApexCourt in case report edas 2000 29SCC 465 t it led as Chairm anRailwayBoard Vs 0 I I Z I 021 4r Z i Chandrim aDas wherein t he Honble SupreineCourt upheldt herightof a rapevict im t o claim fromt he Railwayswhose rapedt he vict im in a Rail Yat ri Niwas t hepublicrightof such a personobservedas underl Pooja 2014.03.26 15:12 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document J 1 88 C3 0 m C 0 t I Z 04 021 V7 Z m 1 CWP No 8347 of2009 08 3a 44 1 Havingregardt o what has been st at ed above t he cont ent iont hat Sm t HanuffaKhat oon should have t he civil and t he m at t ershould not havebeen consideredin a pet it ionunder Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion cannol be Where publicfunct ionariesare involvedand t he m at t er relat es t o t he violat ion of fundam ent alright sor t he enforcem entof publicdut ies t he rem edywould st ill be availableundert hepubliclaw t hat a suit could be filed for under privat elaw The ot her cont ent ionof t he t hat t here is no m ode and m et hodfor t he in such a case unlesst he on t hepartoft he Nigamis est ablished As regardst heliabilit yof t he Nigamfor ln case ofelect rocut ion is concernedt heHonble Suprem eCoun in MR Elect ricit y Board Vs Shail Kum ari 2002 l9 RCR 1m inal 433 has held t hat t he Elect ricit yBoard is liable t o pay even when t here lS 00 on it s part As regardst he det erm inat ionand assessm ent of is concerned an Honb1eDivision Bench oft his Court in a case 2008 41RCR Civil 772 has andappliedt he param et ersofMot or Vehicle Act The pet it ionersin para 20f t he writ pet it ionm ent ioned t he incom e of t he deceasedat Rs 200001 per m ont h I t is st at edt hat he was doingt he businesslwork onj oborder basisat hoine and wasalsodealingin propert ybusiness Averm ent s m ade have been sim plydenied for want of knowledgein t he writ t en st at em ent filed Denial for want of knowledge1S Pooja 2014.03.26 15:12 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh no denial in t he eyesof law I t was upon t hepet it ionerst o have JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 0 1 m 0 I I Z 2 I 021 W Z Qe CWP No 8347 of2009 0cvO 4 placedon record som e evidencein supportof t he incom e of t he deceased No such m at erial hasbeenplacedon record however t hat does not prevent t he Court from t he on t hebasisof t he m at erial on record The age of t he deceasedis m ent ionedas 45 yearsat t het im eofdeat h Even if t heincom eoft he deceasedis t akent o be 113 of what pet it ionershave claim ed1e Rs 65001per m ont h t he can be workedout in t hefollowingm anner1 Annualincom eoft he deceased 6500 x 12 780001 Byapplyingm ult iplierof 12 78000 x 12 9360001 The t he can be worked out by reducingat least 113 m com e of deceasedwhich com es t o Rs 3120001 Thus t he is worked out t o be Rs 9360001 e 31 20001 Rs 6240001 The are ent it ledt o ofRs 6240001 The deat hhas occurredon 152008 The pet it ionersshall also be ent it ledt o int erest c 60I ofrom t he dat eof filif t his pet it iont ill t he am ount is act uallypaid Pet it ion 1 PERMOD KOHLI J JUDGE 9e8e2010 Q1 Pooja 2014.03.26 15:12 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh rJ JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C