Bombay HC Extends Compensation Window for Acid Attack Victims Beyond Statutory Limitation Period

Bombay HC Extends Compensation Window for Acid Attack Victims Beyond Statutory Limitation Period

The Bombay High Court recently granted permission to three victims of a 2010 acid attack case to pursue compensation, even though it exceeded the three-year limitation period outlined in the Maharashtra Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2022.

A division bench comprising Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain deemed the case deserving, considering that the 2022 scheme came into effect while the victims' petition for compensation was still pending.

The three victims in this case were attacked on October 4, 2010. They initiated the current writ petition in 2016, seeking compensation, highlighting the extensive medical and surgical treatment they had to undergo, resulting in significant expenses. In 2017, the court granted the petitioners interim compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 while the case was ongoing.

Under the Victim Compensation Scheme of 2022, compensation is to be evaluated and distributed to victims of sexual assault and other crimes. The Maharashtra Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authority have been designated as Nodal Agencies to facilitate the assessment and distribution of compensation.

Clause 16 of the scheme stipulates a limitation period of three years from the date of the offense or the conclusion of the trial to claim compensation. In this case, the incident occurred on October 4, 2010, and the trial concluded in 2015. Therefore, the petitioners requested directions for their claims to be considered without being barred by limitation.

The court deemed the petitioners' case worthy and permitted them to apply for compensation under the 2022 scheme, notwithstanding the expiration of the prescribed limitation period. It directed that if the petitioners submit their compensation application within four weeks, it should be evaluated solely on its merits and in compliance with the law. The court resolved the petition while keeping all grounds for seeking compensation, as presented in the writ petition, open.

 Case no. – Writ Petition No. 962 of 2016

Case title – ABC v. State of Maharashtra

 

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy