Kerala High Court

Asees P vs The Union Of India on 12 April, 2024

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
  FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                     MFA (RCT) NO. 12 OF 2018
OA NO.12 OF 2016 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS

    1       ASEES P, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA KOYA.M.,
            PARAMMAL HOUSE, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA BEACH P.O.,
            VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 103.
    2       KHADEEJA. P.,AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.ASEES.P., PARAMMAL
            HOUSE, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA BEACH P.O., VADAKARA,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 103.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.V.BINOY RAM
            K.C.HARISH
            K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013)


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

            THE UNION OF INDIA
            REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
            CHENNAI, PIN - 600 001.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.B.RAJESH, SC
            S. BIJU - SC


     THIS    MFA    (RCT)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
5.4.2024,     THE    COURT     ON    12.04.2024    DELIVERED       THE
FOLLOWING:
 MFA (ECT) 12/2018
                                          2


                             C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
                            --------------------------------------
                                  M.F.A.No.12 of 2018
                                -----------------------------
                                Dated : . 12th April, 2024

                                      JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal filed by the applicants in O.A.(IIu)/ERS/12/2016 on the

file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench against the order dated

27.9.2017. The appellants filed the above OA before the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming compensation on account of the death of

Ms.Asbeena, aged 21, their daughter in an untoward incident. The deceased

had boarded Mangalore-Nagercoil Ernad Express train from Thalassery

railway station. While she was standing near the door, she had accidentally

fallen down from the train and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the

injuries. The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs

together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of registration of the OA

for a period of two months. The respondent was directed to deposit 85% of the

total compensation in fixed deposits in a Nationalized Bank in the name of the

appellants and ordered to release the remaining 15% of the compensation

immediately. The award to the extent it denied interest from the date of the

incident till the date of payment has been challenged by the appellants in this

appeal. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following :

Whether the appellants are entitled to get interest for the compensation

awarded, from the date of incident till payment, over and above Rs.8 MFA (ECT) 12/2018

Lakhs awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The point : The fact that the deceased died in an untoward incident while

falling down from Mangalore-Nagercoil Ernad Express train is not in dispute.

It is also not disputed that the appellants are entitled to get a total

compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs, as provided under Part-I of the Schedule to The

Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 ( in

short, the Rules). The only dispute that remains for consideration is whether

the appellants are entitled to get interest for the above Rs.8 Lakhs from the

date of incident, till realization.

4. In support of the argument that the appellants are entitled to get interest from

the date of incident, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata &

Anr., AIR 1976 SC 222 and Union of India v. Rina Devi, AIR 2018 SC

2362. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways

Sri.S.Biju relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union

of India v. Radha Yadav, AIR 2019 SC 1410 and Kamukayi and Others v.

Union of India and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC, 642, would argue that the

appellants are not entitled to get interest for the compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs

awarded, as in the instant case, the incident occurred on 13.4.2015 when the

compensation payable under the schedule to the Rules was only Rs.4 Lakhs.

5. In the instant case, the untoward incident occurred on 13.4.2015 when the

compensation payable under the schedule to the Rules was only Rs.4 Lakhs. MFA (ECT) 12/2018

The compensation payable for death was enhanced from Rs.4 Lakhs to Rs.8

Lakhs as per the Government notification dated 22.12.2016 and it came into

force only w.e.f. 1.1.2017. Therefore, on the date of the incident involved in

this case, the compensation payable was only Rs.4 Lakhs.

6. The mode of computation of the quantum of compensation in such cases was

considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Rathi Menon v.

Union Of India, 2001 (3) SCC 714. In paragraph 15.4 of the above decision

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :

"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 MFA (ECT) 12/2018

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."

7. With regard to the rate of interest payable, the Apex Court held that interest

can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the

Railways arises upto the date of payment, without any difference in the stages.

In paragraph 18 of Rina Devi (supra) the court held thus :

".......We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutory

provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident

itself when the liability of the Railways arises upto the date of

payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in

this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in

this manner."

8. Later on, in the decision in Radha Yadav (supra), the Apex Court clarified

the direction given in Rina Devi (supra) regarding payment of interest on the

amount of compensation. In the above decision, the Calcutta High Court

awarded the claimants compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs together with interest at

9% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till payment

is made. It was challenged in appeal. While disposing of the appeal, in

paragraph 10 the Apex Court held that :

"The issue raised in the matter does not really require any MFA (ECT) 12/2018

elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of

Rina Devi AIR 2018 SC 2362 : 2018 SCR 417 : 2018 (7) SCALE

274 :: 2018 ICO 594 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 had arisen before the

amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the

Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such

basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If

there be any different between the amount so calculated and the

amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the

higher of two figures would be 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 MFA (ECT) 12/2018

us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further

clarification or elaboration."