More than 25 years after a victim of the 1992 communal riots in Ahmedabad filed a lawsuit in 1996 seeking compensation from the Gujarat government, a court in Ahmedabad ordered the state to pay Rs. 49,000 to the petitioner for the “pain and shock” he had experienced as well as the “inconvenience” he had suffered as a result of the riots’ bullet injuries.
Also Read : Only Muslim community have been targeted after Delhi 2020 riots: Delhi Court slams Mehmood Pracha upon this statement
M. A. Bhatti, a civil court judge in Gujarat, has ordered the Gujarat government to pay Manish Chauhan Rs. 49,000. Within 30 days of the Order, the court ordered that Mr Chauhan be paid Rs. 49,000 plus simple interest at the rate of 6% per year from the date of the suit’s filing. Mr Chauhan, who was 18 at the time of the occurrence, was the victim of a hate crime. Mr Chauhan, who was 18 at the time of the occurrence in July 1992, sought compensation of Rs. 7 lakh.
In the year 1996, he filed a lawsuit in the city civil court. During Lord Jagannath’s Rath Yatra in Ahmedabad on July 2, 1992, communal violence erupted and lasted for a few days. On July 5, that year, some men on a scooter fired bullets at Mr Chauhan as he returned home after delivering tiffin to his mother in a municipal hospital. Mr Chauhan was wounded by two bullets, one of each of waist & chest.
He was under treatment until July 14th. Mr Chauhan was earning Rs. 1,000 per month as a private employee at the time of the incident and was the primary breadwinner for his family. His pay was cut in half as a result of his injuries, and his medical care totalled Rs.10,000, according to his appeal.
Also Read : Delhi Riots Didn’t Take Place In Spur Of The Moment, Disturbed Law and Order In the City: Delhi HC
He initially sought Rs. 15,000 from the State government, which he increased to Rs. 75,000 with 18 per cent interest, claiming that it was the State’s responsibility to safeguard the safety and security of its inhabitants in the case of communal disturbances. He told the court that the State should have taken proper steps by deploying the necessary security forces and that his injuries were caused by the State’s failure to do so.
“Though the plaintiff [Mr. Chauhan] does not appear to have made any expenses for his treatment,” the court wrote in the Order, “such injury and treatment as an in-door patient obviously caused inconvenience to the plaintiff and his relatives, and the plaintiff would have suffered immense pain and shock as a result of such injury.”