Mumbai: Bombay high court has sought that the Railway Minister reconsider his decision not to pay a final claim settlement of Rs 5 crore to a 25-year-old woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state since her accident at Marine Drive on May 28, 2017. Nidhi Jethmalani, who was 17 at the time, was on her way to college when she was knocked down by a car owned by Western Railway (WR).”It cannot be said that the Hon’ble Minister is powerless to consider an extraordinary situation of human suffering. Let a reconsideration of the decision take place in light of our observations,” directed Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna on Wednesday after perusing the file containing the decision.The HC is hearing appeals against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal‘s Feb 2021 order that awarded Nidhi nearly Rs 70 lakh in compensation with interest and a Rs 1.5 crore corpus, whose interest would cover her future medical and other expenses. While WR argued that the amounts awarded were on the higher side, Nidhi, through her father, sought their enhancement.On March 6, the judges observed that this is a fit case for a settlement. Nidhi’s father, through advocate Saumen Vidyarthi, agreed to settle for Rs 5 crore excluding amounts already paid.The judges directed WR officers to take instructions from the cabinet minister. On May 2, after being informed that the minister decided not to pay the amount, they directed the relevant file to be produced.They found from the file that an opinion was taken from the additional solicitor general, who opined that HC order needs to be complied with and a discussion with the minister was necessary. “We are not being pointed out that any discussion took place or any minutes of the said discussion or any reasoned opinion of the Hon’ble Minister to reject such a request,” they noted.The judges observed that while it was never their intention that a routine regular procedure be followed, the file “travelled to several officers for their opinions.” When they passed the orders, requesting the minister to consider Nidhi’s case, they were conscious that such a decision could be taken only by the minister “with the ultimate powers he would wield, in treating an exceptional and rare case of continuous human suffering of the appellant (Nidhi).” Therefore, “they have no alternative but to direct the file be placed for reconsideration” by the minister, particularly in view of the ASG’s opinion.