Chandigarh, August 5
"The learned court lost sight of the fact that the applicant was 70 years old. He was a retiring kind. He was a spent cartridge. He was rather a burden on society and his family. He was not earning anything. He has not been incapacitated in earning a livelihood."
This is a portion of the opinion sent by the then District Attorney (DA) of Hisar (Haryana) to the government on May 4, 1985, recommending an appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hisar.
The "spent cartridge" and the "burden on society and his family" that he refers to in his opinion was the man, in whose case, the MACT had ordered the government to pay him Rs 33,500 for loss of his right leg after being hit by a rashly-driven Haryana Roadways bus.
On a case filed by the hapless person, Mr Malu Ram, who had lost his right leg in the accident, caused due to the rashness of the driver of the roadways bus, the MACT, on March 16, 1985, had ordered the government to pay Rs 18,500 to him for expenses on his treatment, medicines, travel to the hospital, etc, and another Rs 15,000 as compensation for loss of the right leg.
However, the DA, the top legal brain of the government at the district level, opined that the compensation was too much! He also recommended that the state government should challenge the MACT order in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The DA's recommendation was duly cleared by the then Legal Remembrancer (LR), Haryana, following which the government moved the High Court.
For the next over 21 years, the court did not decide the case. Finally, a few days ago, it was decided by the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice, Mr Justice H.S. Bedi.
At the very outset, a peeved Mr Justice Bedi asked counsel representing the Government of Haryana if the sum of Rs 15,000 awarded as compensation to a man, who loses his right leg after being hit from behind by a rashly-driven government-owned bus, was "excessive".
On the insistence of the Judge, the Additional AG, Haryana, produced in court the entire record, including the opinion of the DA, in court.
Taking a very strong note of the lackadaisical attitude of the Haryana Government, especially the DA, who recommended filing of the appeal, Mr Justice Bedi observed that the opinion was a very sorry reflection of counselling on part of the DA.
In his strongly-worded order, in which a portion of the DA's opinion has also been produced, Mr Justice Bedi wrote, "The opinion is a stark reflection on the character and obnoxious attitude of the DA. However, since the appeal was filed way back in 1985, it restrains me from any further comment against him. There is absolutely no justification in interfering in the award passed by the MACT."
However, the Judge, while dismissing the appeal, imposed costs of Rs 10,000 to be paid to Mr Malu Ram. The amount, the court ordered, would be recovered from the DA.
