Annual Report 2009-2010 4.164 In response to a show-cause notice issued u/s 18(c) of the PHRA, the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), however, made a request to the Commission not to award any kind of compensation to the victim till the time all the investigations by the police and departmental enquiry initiated against the personnel of CRPF were complete. 4.166 The Commission on scrutiny of records, in particular, the injury report dated 4 January 2010 submi�ed by Dr. V.K. Mahajan observed that the victim had suffered serious injuries in both the eyes on account of which one eye had no vision at all. The other record showed that three erring Constables had been punished on completion of a joint departmental enquiry. On the basis of enquiry held, one Constable on general duty, Ishaq Ahmed, had been punished with compulsory retirement from service. Other two Constables on general duty, Prem Das Damle and Jeshai Unchai had also been punished and their annual increment was stopped for a period of one year. Investigation of criminal cases registered against the accused CRPF personnel was however under progress. 4.167 The Commission thus observed that prime facie a serious case of violation of human rights of a young man had taken place on account of which serious injuries were caused in both his eyes. Besides, the injuries caused in both the eyes were so fatal that it had led to total loss of vision in the le� eye. A�er careful examination of the facts and replies received in connection with the show-cause notice issued to the Director General, CRPF; the Commission concluded that the stand of CRPF is legally not tenable. 4.168 Accordingly, the Commission recommended to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India as well as to the Director General, CRPF to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the victim who had lost sight in one eye due to negligence of the CRPF personnel and submit a compliance report along with proof of payment within six weeks. 4.169 The compliance report along with proof of payment has been received by the Commission and the case was closed. e) Violation of Rights of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes 29. Derogatory Name Given by Revenue Officials to a Village Inhabitated by People of Berwa Community in Rajasthan (Case No.1251/20/2006-2007) 4.170 In this case, the villagers of “Chamaron Ka Vas” situated in Hingota Village Panchayat, Dausa District of Rajasthan sent a complaint to the Commission wherein it was communicated that in the year 1987 the name of their Village “Kuwan Ka Vas” was changed to “Chamaron Ka Vas” by a Lekhpal (Revenue Record Keeper) of the area due to ill-will. The village was inhabitated by people belonging to Berwa community. On 12 September 2006, the villagers had also made a request to the concerned authorities to look into the ma�er and resume the earlier name given to their village. 4.171 The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan vide communication dated 9 September 2009 informed the Commission that alternative names received from the District Collector of Dausa in Rajasthan had been sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for approval. 42 NHRC