Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Ex Gratia Compensation for 1984 Anti-Sikh Riot Victims: A Recent Legal Development.
In a recent landmark decision of Gurnam Singh v/s Union Of India & Others, the Delhi High Court addressed a significant issue concerning compensation for victims of the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots. The Court, through its ruling, established that victims are entitled to interest on delayed ex gratia compensation payments. This ruling emerged from an appeal challenging a Single Judge's decision regarding the entitlement to interest on such compensation.
Background:
The appeal in question was brought under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866, against a judgment dated 30th May 2019 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The appellant, a victim of the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, had sought interest on an ex gratia compensation of ?1,00,000 awarded to him. The compensation was provided under a government scheme to assist victims of the riots that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
The appellant's residence was ransacked during the riots, and he filed multiple claims and petitions over the years seeking compensation. Despite persistent efforts, the compensation was only awarded after several legal interventions, with the final payment made in April 2016.
Key Legal Arguments:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Monica Kapoor, representing the appellant, argued that the delay in compensation payment, attributable to the government, warranted the payment of interest. She highlighted the sequence of events, including various petitions and legal challenges, that ultimately led to the compensation being awarded. Kapoor contended that the appellant should receive interest at 12% per annum, arguing that interest is generally due on delayed payments, even when stemming from governmental schemes.
Counsel for the Respondent:
On the other side, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, representing the Union of India, contended that since the government’s compensation policy did not explicitly mention interest on delayed payments, the Court should not grant such interest. He argued that the delay was not deliberate and that the policy's silence on interest payments should preclude any such claims.
Court’s Findings and Ruling:
The Court examined the Rehabilitation Policy dated 16th January 2006, which outlined enhanced compensation for riot victims. Despite the policy's lack of a specific provision for interest, the Court noted that the policy required disbursement in a time-bound manner. The extended delay in compensating the appellant, lasting from the issuance of this policy to the eventual payment, was deemed unacceptable. The Court recognized the appellant's prolonged struggle to receive the compensation, compounded by repeated legal battles. It reasoned that while the policy did not explicitly provide for interest, such cases of undue delay, especially when involving government compensation schemes, justified the payment of reasonable interest. Thus, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to interest on the ex gratia payment. Specifically, it directed the Union of India to pay interest at a rate of 10% per annum on the compensation amount from 16th January 2006 (the date of the enhanced policy) until 8th April 2016 (the date of payment). Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of ?25,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant within six weeks.
Conclusion:
This ruling marks a significant step in affirming the rights of victims to receive timely compensation and interest on delayed payments. It underscores the judiciary's role in addressing administrative delays and ensuring justice for those who have suffered due to prolonged and unresolved compensation claims. The decision also sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the principle that delay in disbursing rightful compensation should not go uncompensated.