The Jharkhand High Court (Ranchi Bench) has clarified that Rs. 3 lakhs compensation payable to an acid attack victim is only the minimum and not the maximum prescribed limit under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2016. Hence, the Court is not barred from awarding higher compensation where the gravity of the offence, extent of disfigurement, continuing treatment, rehabilitation needs, and physical and mental trauma justify enhancement.
The Court effectively held that compensation in acid attack cases cannot be viewed narrowly in terms of past medical bills alone, and the impact on the victim’s life, future, dignity, rehabilitation and continuing trauma must also be kept in view. At the same time, reimbursement of treatment expenses must be based on actual expenditure incurred and supported by vouchers and bills. Accordingly, the High Court enhanced the appellant’s compensation from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs, and directed that the balance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs be paid to the appellant within eight weeks.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava first condoned the 1374-day delay in filing appeal, holding that in the case of an acid attack victim, delay in filing should be viewed with “utmost sympathy” because the Court cannot be oblivious to the psychological distress and physical injury faced by such a victim. The Bench held that, in the present appeal, the delay became insignificant in the face of the appellant having been traumatized for life.
On merits, the Bench noted that under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2016, Clause 5 and Schedule-I fixed Rs. 3 lakhs as the minimum compensation for an acid attack victim, but the Scheme did not prescribe any upper limit. The Bench made it clear that payment of Rs. 3 lakhs to the appellant did not put fetters on the Court to grant higher compensation if the facts and circumstances demanded it.
The Bench also examined the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2019, issued pursuant to the decision in Nipun Saxena, which was confined to female victims. Under Serial No. 13 of Schedule-II, compensation for acid attack victims ranged from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs depending on the degree of injury, and for disfigurement of face the minimum compensation was Rs. 7 lakh and the upper limit was Rs. 8 lakhs. The Bench observed that this created a wide variance between the compensation structure applicable to female victims under the 2019 Scheme and the minimum compensation under the 2016 Scheme, and stated that it was time for the State to consider amendment of the 2016 Scheme, especially for male victims, to obliterate the discrimination it accentuates.
Referring to Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India [(2016) 3 SCC 571], the Bench reiterated that Rs. 3 lakhs are not sufficient in acid attack cases and that compensation must not only be for physical injury, but must also take note of the victim’s inability to lead a full life and enjoy amenities robbed by the acid attack. The Bench recorded that the appellant’s face remained visibly deformed even after multiple surgeries, and that though physical and mental pain cannot be fully compensated in money terms, monetary compensation would go a long way in alleviating such trauma and assisting rehabilitation.
The Bench further observed that the appellant had been pursuing Chartered Accountancy and had a bright future ahead of him, but his dreams, aspirations and goals had been scuttled because of the acid attack. It therefore found the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to be a meagre sum in the facts of the case.
Briefly, Rahul Kumar, an acid attack survivor, filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated November 27, 2019, where the Single Judge had declined to enhance the compensation beyond Rs. 3 lakhs under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016. Although the appeal was filed with a delay of 1374 days, the appellant explained that he had been continuously undergoing treatment and multiple surgeries after the acid attack, had suffered 45% disability, had major loss of eyesight, had no source of income, and had chosen treatment over litigation.
The acid attack took place on May 31, 2012 when the appellant intervened in a quarrel involving his 10-year-old cousin and a neighbour. In response, the neighbour returned with a bottle of liquid and threw it on his face. An FIR was thereafter registered under Sections 307, 326, 304, 506/34 of the IPC. The appellant pleaded that the attack caused severe disfigurement of his face, damage to his eyelids, ears, neck, chest and left upper limb, and that he had already spent more than Rs. 25 lakhs on treatment and still required future medical care and rehabilitation.
The appellant raised not only the issue of enhanced compensation, but also questioned whether compensation for acid attack victims could be restricted to Rs. 3 lakhs, whether the State was liable to bear the entire medical expenditure, whether denial of adequate compensation violated Article 21, and whether the State’s scheme discriminated between male and female acid attack victims. The appellant also argued that compensation must account for mental trauma, psychological damage, family sufferings, social desertion, inability to pursue education or employment, and loss of equality of status and opportunity.
