Jharkhand High Court
Union Of India Through The General ... vs Nalini Ranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar on 18 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 478 of 2014
........
Union of India through the General Manager,
Eastern Railway, Kolkata .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Nalini Ranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar .... ..... Respondent
With
M.A. No. 271 of 2014
........
Sri Nalini Ranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager,
Eastern Railway, Kolkata .... ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate
: Ms. Ganga Kumari Kachhap, Advocate.
[In M.A. No. 478/2014]
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate
: Ms. Ganga Kumari Kachhap, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
[In M.A. No. 271/2014]
........
10/18.01.2021.
Union of India has preferred the appeal against the award dated
30.04.2014 in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2007/0059 passed by learned
Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench whereby
the respondent herein in M.A. No.478/2014 and appellant in M.A.
No.271/2014 has been granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-
without any interest, but if the amount is not paid within three months
from the date of receipt of this order by the Railway, the applicant is
entitled to get simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order
till realization.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Union of India, Mr. Mahesh
Tewari has submitted that Union of India has assailed the impugned award
on the ground that without having any F.I.R. or document to support the
untoward incident the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded the
compensation against the railway in favour of applicant - Nalini Ranjan
Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar.
Learned counsel for the Railway has further submitted that I.A.
No.538/2015 has been filed for condonation of delay of 140 days and I.A.
No.539/2015 has been filed for stay of the proceeding.
Learned counsel for the Railway has further submitted that the
reason has been mentioned in the interlocutory application for
condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari
assisted by Ms. Ganga Kumari Kachhap has submitted that the impugned
award has been rightly passed by the learned Tribunal considering the
applicant to be a bonafide passenger, who fall from the train because of
heavy crowd and as such, his left leg above the knee and right leg below
the knee got mangled and as such, the impugned award with regard to
bonafide passenger has been rightly considered and with regard to
untoward incident under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act the Apex
Court has considered such situation in the case of Union of India v.
Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the amount
may be enhanced as learned Tribunal has not granted any interest on the
award and only in default has granted interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of award, which is non-sustainable in the eyes of law as the applicant,
Nalini Ranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar filed application on 18.04.2007
and the learned Tribunal has decided the issue on 30.04.2014, but no
reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal that this delay was
caused because of the lethargic attitude of the applicant, as such, this
Court may grant interest from the date of application till the date of
realization or Rs.8,00,000/- in view of the new amendment made in the
Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990,
which has been amended in the year 2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2017 and this
situation has been considered by the Apex Court in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav
reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court 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."
Learned counsel for the Railway in M.A. No.271/2014, Mr. Vijay
Kumar Sinha has submitted that there is no provision to award interest in a
compensation under the statute and as such, the same cannot be granted.
Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari has
placed reliance upon the judgment of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and
others vs. Union of Indian and another, reported in 2009(7) SCC 372 at
para 38, which says that payment of interest is basically compensation for
being denied the use of money during the period in which the same could
have been made available to the claimant, the Apex Court thus allowed the
interest, as such, this Court may also be pleased to allow the interest.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the
fact of the case, the fact admitted between the parties are as such, the
applicant Nalini Ranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar was travelling in Train
No.3401 UP (Bagalpur - Danapur Intercity Express) holding 2nd Class
M/E ticket No.10067 from Masudan to Barhiya.
The learned Tribunal has framed three issues, which are as follows:-
(1) Whether the Nalini Ranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar, S/o Sri
Vishnudeo Prasad Singh was a bonafide passenger as alleged?
(2) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section
123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the Nalini
Ranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar, S/o Sri Vishnudeo Prasad Singh
and sustained grievous injuries while travelling in Train No.3401
UP Bhagalpur - Danapur Intercity Express on 19.02.2007 at
Masudan Railway Station (P.F. No.1)?
(3) Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed
and other relief if any?
And to prove his case the applicant produced himself as witness
A.W.-1. In support of his claim the applicant has furnished the following
documents along with the claim petition:-
(1) Xerox copy of Fardbayan of Sri Nalini Ranjan Kumar @
Ritesh Kumar.
(2) Xerox copy of Discharge ticket and other relevant medical
papers issued by P.M.C.H. Patna in 6 pages &
(3) Xerox copy of journey ticket.
Later the applicant has also furnished the following documents,
which are marked as Exhibits:-
1. Original copy of Treatment Record -Ext. A1
2. Original copy of Discharge Ticket in eight sheets - Ext.A2 to
Ext.10
3. Original copy of Out Patient Registration Details of PMCH,
Patna in seven sheets - Ext.A11 to Ext.17.
4. Original copy of Medical voucher in 10 sheets.
5. Original copy of Blood Examination Report in 3 sheets.
6. (Original seen) Xerox copy of Handicapped Certificate - Ext.
A18.
7. Again Xerox copies of Treatment Record in 12 sheets.
The respondent has not examined any oral evidence, however, has
placed original copy of DSC/ER/Malda's letter dated 13.12.2013 along
with the letter dated 16.11.2013 Exhibit- R1.
The learned Tribunal after considering the material available on
record has decided all the issues in favour of the applicant, Nalini Ranjan
Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar and allowed the application, in terms of schedule
Part-III (18) and (24) of Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990 and granted a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
under the Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation)
Rules, 1990, but granted interest from the date of award, if the awarded
amount is not paid within three months.
In my opinion considering the schedule the learned Tribunal ought
to have considered, the case under Part -II entry no.3, which reads as
follows:-
"For double amputation through leg or thigh or amputation through
leg or thigh on the one side and loss of other foot", the existing
compensation was Rs. 4,00,000/-, which has been enhanced to
Rs.8,00,000/- by way of amendment brought in the year 2016 w.e.f.
01.01.2017.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, the compensation which has
been considered to be Rs.4,00,000/- was also their as Rs.4,00,000/- which
has now been amended to Rs.8,00,000/-, accordingly, the applicant Nalini
Ranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar is entitled for compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest or Rs.8,00,000/-, in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav
(Supra), and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others (Supra), this Court is inclined to
grant interest from the date of filing of the application till the date of
realization.
Accordingly, the M.A. No.271/2014 is hereby allowed and M.A.
No.478/2014 is dismissed.
The Railway is directed to indemnify the compensation @ Rs.
8,00,000/- or Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of
the claim application till the date of actual payment, whichever is higher in
favour of the claimant.
Since the order has been passed on merits, I.A. No.538/2015 and
I.A. No.539/2015 are closed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
