Jharkhand High Court
Shri Krishna Prasad vs Union Of India Through General ... on 22 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 609 of 2016
Shri Krishna Prasad .... .. ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, P.O. & P.S.-
Hajipur, District- Vaishali (Bihar) .. ... ... Respondent
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :-Video Conferencing)
.........
For the Appellant : Ms. C.C. Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
08/ 22.02.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is an
unfortunate case where the claim application has been allowed in terms of
award dated 13.08.2013 passed by learned Member/Technical, Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/2011/0005, but
instead of granting compensation at the relevant time in view of the Railway
Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 to the tune
of Rs.4 lacs for part-I i.e. death of the bonafide passenger in an untoward
incident, the learned Tribunal has erroneously paid compensation of Rs.2
lacs, which is not in accordance with the Railway Accidents and Untoward
Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
Railway may pay rest of amount Rs.2 lacs along with interest @ 7.5% from
the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 27.12.2010 till the date of
indemnifying the award or Rs.6 lacs as per the new amended Rules vide
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016,
with effect from 01.01.2017 following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, reported in 2019(3) SCC 410. Para
11 of which may be profitable quoted hereunder:-
"11. This issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in
our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi (supra) is very clear. What this
Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of
accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so
calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the
claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the
liability has arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be
as per the Schedule as was in existence before amendment and on such basic figure
reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between
the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the measure of
compensation. 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.
Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that this Court
may direct the Railway to indemnifying the balance amount along with
interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e.
27.12.2010 or Rs.6 lacs (as Rs.2 lacs has already been paid out of Rs.8 lacs) as
per the new amended Rules vide Railway Accidents and Untoward
Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016 whichever is higher in favour of the
claimant.
Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has submitted
that one week time may be granted so as to seek instruction in the matter
and peruse the file.
Considering the same, let the matter be listed on 1st March, 2021.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on any
ground.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S./
