Smt Badki Devi vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 576 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                    M.A. No. 336 of 2016
                            ........

1. Smt Badki Devi

2. Sri Shyamlal Hembram

3. Smt. Amya Devi .... ..... Appellants Versus Union of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. .... ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate.

........

07/08.02.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate and learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Devesh Krishna.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.04.2016 in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2011/0062 passed by learned Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, wherein the learned Tribunal has not discussed the issue that deceased Hukma Hembram was a bonafide passenger or not? The Tribunal has only decided issue no.2 and held that there was no evidence about the fall of victim from the train, rather it is a case of self-inflected injury.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased, Hukma Hembram boarded Puri -Delhi Neelanchal Express train at Tata Nagar Station for going to Parasnath. Some fellow passengers got down at Parasnath Railway Station, but when the deceased was getting down from the train, it started moving. As result he fell down, got injured and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on spot. The journey ticket was recovered from the pocket of the deceased at the time of preparation of Inquest report at Parasnath Railway Station, but the learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence of A.W.-1, Smt. Badki Devi, A.W.-2, Basiya Manjhi and the final report submitted by the police brought on record as Exhibit- C1, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Others reported

in (2008) 9 SCC 527.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that original ticket has already been brought on record as Exhibit-C2, as such, the impugned judgment dismissing the claim application is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same may be set aside and claim application may be allowed in favour of the claimants along with interest, on the enhanced amount, in view of the amendment made in the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which has been amended vide Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2017 by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372. The interest may be awarded in favour of the claimants @ 7.5% per annum simple interest from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 07.10.2011 till the date of actual indemnifying the award, as the incident was of dated 10/11.04.2011.

Para-38 of the aforesaid judgment may be profitably quoted hereunder:-

"38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims."

Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Devesh Krishna has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the accident took place because of the negligence of the deceased, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application. This Court may not interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal and has reiterated para-3 of the impugned judgment, which is profitably quoted hereunder:-

"3. The respondent filed written statement disputing the fact that the deceased accidently fell from Neelanchal Express on 10/11.02.2011. A reference has been made to the fardbayen which

mentions that the deceased was himself responsible for his death as he jumped down from the running train. Further reference has been made to the Inquest report & Final report of the Police investigation which mentioned that the deceased stepped down from the running train and in that process he fell down at the platform. It has also been denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger."

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials brought on record, since the original journey ticket has been brought on record as Exhibit-C2, which has not been discussed by the learned Tribunal and also the same has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the Railway, as such, deceased was a bonafide passenger.

So far untoward incident is concerned, the evidence brought on record by A.W.-1, Smt Badki Devi and A.W.-2, Sri Basiya Manjhi and the final report, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-C1, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (Supra), this Court is inclined to consider the incident to be an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

So far the compensation with interest is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410, has held in paragraph-11 as under:-

"11. ...................... For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs 4,00,000. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs 8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs 8,00,000. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs 8,00,000 the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs 8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration."

And in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others vs. Union of Indian (Supra), payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. Para-38 of the aforesaid judgment is profitably quoted hereunder:-

"38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims."

The Railway is directed to indemnify the compensation of Rs.

8,00,000/- or Rs. 4,00,000/- along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment, whichever is higher in favour of the claimants, in view of the amendment made in the Railways Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which has been amended vide Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2017, whichever is higher in favour of the appellants.

Thus, Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. Let the L.C.R. be sent down to the court below forthwith.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/-