Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse cannot be monopolised/cornered by a few individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is treating the allotment of a PCO Booth in favour of..

Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse cannot be monopolised/cornered by a few individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is treating the allotment of a PCO Booth in favour of her physically handicapped late husband as a family asset which can be inherited by her and her family members. Consequently, present writ petition and application being bereft of merit are dismissed. However, keeping in view the intent and objective of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, respondents are directed to allocate the PCO Booth/Tea Stall to be vacated by the petitioner, in accordance with the aforesaid Act, within a period of two months.

Dr. Naresh Gupta and Dr. S.Ramji had handed over the following certificate:- “The patient, Amit Ahuja, a case of hemophilia presently admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital is now in a stable condition without factor VIIa treatment and is maintainin..

Dr. Naresh Gupta and Dr. S.Ramji had handed over the following certificate:- “The patient, Amit Ahuja, a case of hemophilia presently admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital is now in a stable condition without factor VIIa treatment and is maintaining satisfactory progress. If at a later date, the patient would need factor VIIa, the hospital would provide the same.”

The aforesaid certificate is taken on record and the undertaking given by the Lok Nayak Hospital is accepted by this Court and Lok Nayak Hospital is held bound by the same. 

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we are of the view that the three broad heads considered by the Division Bench for award of damages are sufficiently representative of the claim of the Plaintiff. The precise quantum of compensa..

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we are of the view that the three broad heads considered by the Division Bench for award of damages are sufficiently representative of the claim of the Plaintiff. The precise quantum of compensation that should be awarded in any given case cannot and, in fact, need not be determined with mathematical exactitude or arithmetical precision. So long the compensation awarded broadly represents what could be the entitlement of a claimant in any given case the discretion vested in the trial court and the regular first appellate court ought not to be lightly interfered. Taking into account the facts before us and having regard to the basis on which damages have been awarded, we do not consider the same to be either inadequate or inappropriate so as to justify interference. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Plaintiff is also dismissed. Consequently and in the light of the foregoing discussions, both sets of appeals are dismissed.