Allahabad High Court
Rajendra @ Raghvendra And Ors. vs Union Of India Throu.General ... on 19 May, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 653 of 2019
Appellant :- Rajendra @ Raghvendra And Ors.
Respondent :- Union Of India Throu.General Manager North Central Railway
Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Prakash Singh,Kavita Devi
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv P. Shukla
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Shiv P. Shukla learned counsel for respondent-Union of India.
First appeal from order has been filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 against judgment and award dated 31st October, 2019 whereby an amount of rupees eight lacs has been granted as compensation along with interest.
Learned counsel for appellants submits that while awarding the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has directed payment of only 10% of the awarded amount through electronic clearance system method while 90% of amount has been directed to be invested in interest bearing schemes with interest component being required to be paid to the appellants. It has been submitted that the aforesaid provision pertaining to payment of compensation has been made purportedly in pursuance to directions issued by High Court of Delhi in its order dated 24th May, 2019 passed in F.A..O. No. 22 of 2015 (Geeta Devi versus Union of India). It is further submitted that in pursuance to directions of High Court of Delhi, the Railway Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit scheme was notified on 3rd June, 2020 but with effect from Ist January, 2020. It is submitted that since the impugned judgment and award has been passed on 31st October, 2019, it predates the amendment in the rules and as such the said amendment was inapplicable in the present case. It is submitted that even otherwise the appellant No.1 being major, there was no occasion for such a provision without indicating his back ground and aspect of illiteracy.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent while refuting the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent submitted that even though the judgment and award is dated 31st October, 2019 which admittedly is prior to the enforcement of Annuity Deposit Scheme but is still in consonance with directions issued by High Court at Delhi and therefore the mere fact that it predates the enforcement of Railway Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit Scheme would not confer any benefit on the appellant since it has been passed in pursuance to directions issue by High Court at Delhi which would be applicable upon all the tribunals in the country.
Upon consideration of submissions of learned counsel for parties and perusal of martial on record, the following point of determination is being framed:-
(1) Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in directing the amount of compensation to be deposited in terms of the annuity deposit scheme?
With regard to aforesaid point of determination, it is admitted that the impugned judgment predates the date of enforcement of Railway Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit Scheme which has been notified on 3rd June, 2020 as amendment in the Railway Accidents and untoward incidents (compensation) Rules, 1990 enforceable with effect from Ist January, 2020. However it is also an admitted fact that directions issued by the impugned award are in terms of judgment and order rendered by High Court at Delhi dated 24th May, 2019, which would naturally be binding upon all the Tribunal in the country. As such the submission that the directions regarding payment of compensation as made in the impugned award being not in consonance with the annuity deposit scheme are rejected.
However upon perusal of the judgment rendered by High Court at Delhi in the case of Geeta Devi versus Union of India dated 24th May, 2019, it can be discerned that the reason indicated by the High Court at Delhi for ensuring such a method of payment of compensation is on account of the fact that various claimants are illiterate and are susceptible to coercion and pressure from outside persons. The scheme has been recommended by the High Court at Delhi in order to protect the amount of compensation awarded to such claimants who are from rural areas, are elected and therefore susceptible to pressures from unscrupulous elements. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:-
" 5.1 Many of the claimants are drawn from rural area with low levels of literacy sand lower levels of making appropriate decision for the use of amounts guaranteed under the awards. There are several instances of their exploitation by middlemen and touts operating in the field. The scope for such exploitation is itself one of the incentives for fomenting bogus claims, fabricated documents and duplicate claims in different Benches of the Tribunal for the same cause of action. The availability of bulk funds in the name of an ill-informed claimant is also a cause for exploitation. A scheme for protection of the amount due to such a claimant is the need of the hour. "
Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment and its applicability in the present case, it is seen that while indicating the aforesaid method of payment to the claimants, the Tribunal has ignored the very purpose of imposition of such a scheme. There is no finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the back ground of the claimants particularly with regard to their education, place of residence and backwardness. As such it is apparent that none of the factors indicated in the judgment by the High Court at Delhi have been found in the present case.
Upon perusal of the memorandum of appeal, it is apparent that the appellant No.1 lives in a large city and is aged about 39 years with two minor children to take care of. It is thus apparent that the appellant No.1 is of advanced age and does not live in the rural place. He also appears to be educated since he has signed the claim petition. As such it is evident that none of the conditions indicated in the judgment of Gita Devi (supra) would be applicable in the present case with regard to appellant No.1.
Considering the aforesaid, the point of determination is answered in the affirmative in favour of the appellant.
In view of aforesaid, the judgment and award dated 31st October, 2019 is modified to the extent that the directions pertaining to payment of only 10% of claim in the share of appellant No.1 through E.C.S. method is set aside and it is directed that the entire apportionment of claim along with interest through E.C.S. method in favour of the appellant No.1 shall be paid to him . However since the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are as yet minor, the directions of Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award dated 31st October, 2019 are upheld.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed in terms of directions issued herein above. Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 19.5.2022
prabhat
