Sanju Kunwar & Ors vs Union Of India
2018 Latest Caselaw 4712 Del

$~ 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of Decision: 10th August, 2018
+     FAO 284/2014
      SANJU KUNWAR & ORS                          ..... Appellants
                  Through:              Mr.Shyam Singh Sisodia, Advocate

                               versus

      UNION OF INDIA                                       ..... Respondent
                    Through:            Mr.Ashok Singh, Advocate for UOI
                                        Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Head
                                        Counsel of Northern Railways and
                                        convenor of the Committee with
                                        Mr.Kamlesh Kumar and Ms.Priyata
                                        Chakraborty, Advocates
                                        Inspector Tribuvan Negi, P.S. N.D.R.
                                        Station and SI Ravit Kumar Sharma,
                                        RPF, Tilak Bridge
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
                            JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellants have challenged the order dated 04th June, 2014, whereby the Railways Claims Tribunal dismissed their claim.

2. Appellant No.1 is the widow and appellants No.2 to 4 are the children of late Harakh Nath Pandey. The appellants filed an application for compensation before the Railways Claims Tribunal claiming compensation on the ground that late Harakh Nath Pandey was travelling by an EMU train from Faridabad to Delhi Junction on 06th September, 2011 and he accidentally fell down from the overcrowded compartment of the train at Km 1534/43 near platform No.1 at Tilak Bridge Station and died on the spot.

3. The Station Master, Tilak Bridge Station in his report dated 13th June, 2012 (Ext. R-5) stated that no untoward incident occurred on the station on 06th September, 2011. However, DD No.15 PP dated 06th September, 2011, (Ext. A-6) of GRP, New Delhi Railway Station records the receipt of information from telephone No.9971630650 at 01:20 P.M. that a dead body was lying at platform No.1, Tilak Bridge Station whereupon GRP, NDRS handed over the case to Raghuvir Singh, ASI who in his report, Ex.A-16 recorded that the dead body had been identified by Dina Nath Pandey, elder brother of Harakh Nath Pandey. Raghuvir Singh, ASI submitted another report dated 11th September, 2011 (Ex.AW1/8) in which he contradicted his earlier report and recorded that the dead body of the deceased remained unidentified in the morgue till 11th September, 2011, when Dina Nath Pandey identified the body. Raghuvir Singh, ASI recorded the statement of one Kirpal Singh, Constable of RPF on 06th September, 2011 according to which the passengers told him that a passenger has fallen from the EMU train. Raghuvir Singh, ASI also recorded the statement of labourers named Ram Kumar and Vijay Kumar, according to which they saw a person falling from the train.

4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has doubted the reports of the Police on various grounds, inter alia, that the Station Master in his report had stated that no accident took place on 06th September, 2011 at Tilak Bridge Railway Station and there was inconsistency in the reports of ASI, Raghubir Singh.

5. Vide order dated 07th November, 2017, this Court observed that the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 have not been followed in the investigation of the present case. This Court, therefore, constituted a Committee comprising of four members,

namely, one senior officer of Railways, one senior officer of Railways Protection Force, one senior officer of Delhi Police and Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, learned counsel for Railways to examine the matter and submit a report to this Court.

6. Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, learned counsel for Railways has handed over the minutes of meeting as well as the report of the Committee which are taken on record. Learned counsel for Railways has also handed over the photograph of the dead body lying near the track at the site of the incident near platform No.1 of Tilak Bridge Railway Station. Learned counsel has handed over the site plan prepared by the police which shows the position of dead body near the track. The photograph and site plan are taken on record.

7. The Committee appointed by this Court has deliberated upon the matter and confirmed that late Harakh Nath Pandey suffered an untoward incident on 06th September, 2011 which resulted in his death near platform No.1, Tilak Bridge Railway Station. The report of the Committee is accepted. The finding of the Claims Tribunal doubting the veracity of the incident is set aside. The appellants are held entitled to the compensation for the untoward incident.

8. The aforesaid incident occurred on 06th September, 2011 when Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 provided for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. However, the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 were revised from 1st January 2017 by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016 whereby the compensation amount for death was enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-.

9. In Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 507 case, the

Supreme Court interpreted the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016 and held that if the compensation amount under the pre-amended rules along with interest is more than the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to the higher amount. The relevant portion of the Supreme Court judgment is reproduced hereunder:

15.3. ........................Wherever it is found that the revised amount of applicable compensation as on the date of award of the Tribunal is less than the prescribed amount of compensation as on the date of accident with interest, higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded on the principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislation is certainly a piece of beneficent legislation.

15.4. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo(supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.

(Emphasis Supplied)

10. In Pappi v. U.O.I. decided on 10th May, 2018, the Railways Claims

Tribunal has elucidated the principles laid down in Rina Devi (supra) as under :-

"........................If the liability to pay arises on the date of accident then in respect of accident which has taken place before 01.01.2017 (i.e. when through a notification amount was enhanced to Rs eight lakhs), the liability was for Rs four lakhs.If interest at 9% were to be worked out till the date of award and if the amount reckoned is found to be less than eight lakhs, being a beneficial legislation the compensation payable will be only eight lakhs with 9% interest from the date of the award. On the other hand, if the computation results in a figure which is more than eight lakhs as now prescribed, then the tribunal will award four lakhs with interest at 9% from the date of accident till the payment is made. On a computation for our own guidance, we notice that in every case where an accident has taken place 11 yrs. 1 month and 10 days before the date when the adjudication is done, it will mean that compensation at 9% on four lakhs will exceed eight lakhs as is now provided. Consequently, in such cases where accident has taken place before 1.1.2017, compensation that could be awarded would be on the basis of the amount prescribed ( that is, 4 lacs) as on the date of accident with interest. In all other cases the compensation shall be Rs eight lakhs with interest at 9% from the date of the award. It cannot be interest from the date of accident on Rs eight lakhs for accident taking place before 01.01.2017 only because we have compared the sums of what the compensation would be, if the amount were to be worked out on four lakhs and eight lakhs respectively and adopt the amount which is more, that is beneficial to the claimants.

The qualifying period of 11 yrs. 1 month and 10 days must be seen as the period when interest is calculated. There could be occasions where we deny interest because of the conduct of the applicant or because there has been enormous unexplained delay in filing the application and we may have reserved the issue of interest to be considered

at the time of judgement even while allowing the application after condonation of delay. In all such cases there is no warrant for awarding interest from the date of accident.

Since in this case the accident has occurred before 1.1.2017 and the amount of 4 lacs with interest at 9 % from the date of accident will yield less than Rs 4 lacs towards component of interest and the total will be less than Rs 8 lacs, there shall be an award for Rs.8,00,000/- being the higher amount with interest @ 9% from the date of award till the date of payment."

(Emphasis Supplied)

11. In the present case, the untoward incident occurred on 06th September, 2011 i.e., prior to 1st January, 2017 when the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016 came into force. The amount of Rs.4 lakhs with interest at 9 % from the date of accident would yield less than Rs.4 lakhs towards interest component and the total amount will be less than Rs.8,00,000/-. In that view of the matter, applying the principles laid down in Rina Devi (supra), the claimants are held entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-, being the higher amount.

12. In FAO 109/2017 and 45/2018 decided on 1st June, 2018, this Court awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest thereon which is not in conformity with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra). In that view of the matter, this Court holds that judgement dated 1st June, 2018 in FAO 109/2017 and 45/2018 shall not be treated as a precedent.

13. The appeal is allowed and the compensation of Rs.8 lakhs is awarded to the appellants. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited within four weeks, the appellants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% from the date of this judgment till the date of payment. The Railways is directed to deposit the

amount with the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks.

14. List for disbursement of compensation amount on 16th November, 2018.

15. The appellants shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing along with the passbook of their savings bank accounts near the place of their residence as well as PAN card and Aadhaar card. The concerned banks of appellants are directed not to issue any cheque book or debit card to appellants and if the same have already been issued, the banks are directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on their passbooks to this effect. The appellants shall produce the copy of this order to the concerned banks, whereupon the bank shall make an endorsement on the passbooks of appellants that no cheque book and/or debit card shall be issued to appellants without the permission of this Court. However, the concerned bank shall permit appellants to withdraw money from their savings bank account by means of a withdrawal form. The appellants shall produce the original passbooks of their individual savings bank accounts with the necessary endorsement on the next date of hearing. However, appellants be permitted to withdraw money from their savings bank account by means of a withdrawal form.

16. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, learned counsel for Railways.

17. The report of the Committee on the working of Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, shall be examined in FAO 22/2015, Geeta Devi v. Union of India. The Railways is directed to place the copy of the report of the Committee in Geeta Devi v. Union of India (supra) listed on 07th September, 2018.

18. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Railways Clams Tribunal.

19. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signatures of the Court Master.

AUGUST 10, 2018                                         J.R.MIDHA, J.
ds