[POCSO] DLSA/DLSLSA & Not Court Would Be Bound By The Limits On The Amount Of Compensation Payable Under Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2018: Delhi High Court

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani while setting aside an order granting interim compensation of Rs 50,000 in favour of the petitioner aged 6 years being subjected to sexual assault, abuse & sodomy by his relative passed by Ld ASJ has observed that DLSA/DLSLSA & not Court would be bound by the limits on the amount of compensation payable under Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2018 (“DVC Scheme, 2018”) which includes the minimum & maximum compensation envisaged in the schedule.

“Considering that the petitioner was subject to the offence of ?U??nnatural Sexual Assault, for which the Schedule to Part II sets- down the minimum limit of compensation as Rs. 4 lacs and the upper limit of compensation as Rs. 7 lacs. Since the petitioner is a ??????? for whom Clause 9 (Part-II) of the DVC Scheme 2018 says that the minimum and maximum limits of compensation would be deemed to be 50% higher than those mentioned in the Schedule, in the ?e??????e??? case the minimum and maximum limits would stand enhanced from Rs. 4 lacs to Rs. 6 lacs and from Rs. 7 lacs to Rs. 10.5 lacs respectively.Clause 9(3) (Part II) of the DVC Scheme 2018 even grants discretion to the DLSA/DSLSA to say that ? ... However, in deserving cases, for reasons to be recorded, the upper limit may be e?xceeded.?”, the Court observed.

The Court relied on the Second Proviso to Clause 12 (Part-II) of the DVC Scheme 2018 which read as, “the interim relief granted to a victim shall not be less than 25% of the maximum compensation awardable as per the Schedule and that such compensation shall be paid to the victim in totality” to decide the compensation & observed that if the petitioner approached the DLSA/DSLSA seeking interim compensation in accordance with the DVC Scheme, 2018, the DLSA/DSLSA would be bound to award to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 2,62,500/- i.e. 25% of Rs. 10.5 lacs.

“It needs no jurisprudential justification to say therefore, that the court must bear this amount in mind as a benchmark while assessing the interim compensation payable to the petitioner.”, the Court said.

“Since the system cannot turn the clock back nor ??und??o the offence, there is little else the court can do other than prosecute the offender and provide to the victim whatever psychological security and sense of empowerment that monetary compensation can give.”, the Court also observed.

The Court directed the DSLSA to disburse & pay to the petitioner interim compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ forthwith within 04 weeks of receipt of this order & to pay Rs 1,00,000 out of this sum by way of electronic remittance into a savings bank account held or to be opened (with DSLSA?? assistance) & Rs 5,00,000 by way of a fixed deposit respectively in the petitioner’s name with his mother as joint holder, in a nationalised bank, initially for a period of 5 (five) years with a provision for automatic renewal for another period of 5 (five) years, with a further provision of automatic renewal for a period of 2 (two) years.

“The interest earned on such fixed deposit shall be credited to the peti????e??? savings bank account, on a monthly basis. The money in the savings bank account shall be available for withdrawal and use by the petitioner through his mother; but the petitioner or his mother shall not be permitted to break or prematurely encash the fixed deposit(s) made, without prior permission of this court. The petitioner’s mother shall use and apply the aforesaid sum of Rs. 100,000/- as also the interest received from the fixed deposit created in the petitioner's name, only for the benefit and welfare of the petitioner, towards his medical, educational, rehabilitation and other needs and requirement from time-to-time, and not for any other purpose. If the mother wishes to use the money for any other purpose, she may seek prior leave of this court.”, the Court also directed.

The Court also observed that, “while attempting to quantify the compensation payable to the petitioner even at the interim stage, the effort of this court should be to offer monetary recompense, to the extent possible, for atonement of the crime to which the petitioner was subject; the physical and mental trauma suffered by him; and the emotional scar left on his psyche.”

Case Title: Mst. X (Through Mother And Natural Guardian) V. State & Ors. | W.P.(CRL) 1419/2020