Complaints Before the Commission ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 4.98 While considering the aforesaid submission, the Commission, analyzed the various provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and held that the provisions of Section 19 of the Act are specific provisions to deal with the complaints of violations of human rights by members of the Armed Forces and prescribes specified procedure, which is somewhat different than the procedure prescribed u/s 17 for inquiry into complaints of violation of human rights in general. Whereas, the Commission while inquiring into the complaints of violation of human rights generally, may call for information or report from the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority/organization subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by it and initiate an inquiry and take any of the steps prescribed in Section 18 of the Act, whereas in cases of complaints of violation of human rights by members of the Armed Forces, the Commission shall not conduct an inquiry, but it may, either on its own motion or on receipt of a petition, seek a report from the Central Government and after the receipt of the report, it may, either not proceed with the complaint or make its recommendations to the Government. The Parliament in its supreme wisdom did not place any restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Commission to make its recommendations after the receipt of a report from the Central Government u/s 19 of the Act. The power u/s 19(1)(b) of the Act is wide in its amplitude and it would include, without any doubt, the power to recommend to the concerned Government grant of such compensation including grant of “interim relief” to the victims or the members of their family as the Commission may consider appropriate in the nature of “immediate interim relief” envisaged u/s 18(3) of the Act. 4.99 The Commission further emphasized that the payment of compensation in cases like the present one is in the nature of an order of making monetary amends for the wrong done due to breach of public duty of not protecting the human rights of the citizen. The Commission has, thus, not only the power and jurisdiction to make recommendations u/s 19(1)(b) but also an obligation to grant interim relief, in the nature of what is envisaged by Section 18(3) of the Act, while exercising its powers of 19(1) (b) of the Act in deserving cases. 4.100 In view of the above analysis, the Commission recommended that Rs. 2 Lakhs be paid to each of the next of kin of the deceased. The Ministry of Home Affairs submitted their compliance report regarding the payment of compensation amount. 16. Death of Shri Vikram by negligence of R.P.F., Maharashtra - Case No. 21/1/20032004 4.101 The Commission received a complaint from Shri Bhaskar Mahadeorao bringing to the notice of the Commission a news item published in the “Daily Maharashtra Times” on 8-12003. It was reported in the newspaper that one Shri Vikram, a samosa vendor, was pushed down from running train by the Police as he was travelling without a ticket. He lost his hand and a leg. 42 AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65 National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005 62 7/17/06, 6:29 PM