Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Narendra Singh Tomar on 1 April, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 706 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL
MANAGER WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY
JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY SARWATE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NARENDRA SINGH TOMAR S/O
JAGANNATH SINGH TOMAR, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE
JALONI, P.S.AMBAH, DIST.MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. MANJU RAWAT D/O NARENDRA
SINGH TOMAR W/O KULDEEP SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
GRAM-JALONI, THANA AMBAH, DISTRICT-
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRADEEP SINGH TOMAR S/O NARENDRA
SINGH TOMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM-JALONI, THANA
AMBAH, DISTRICT-MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. POONAM SINGH D/O NARENDRA
SINGH TOMAR W/O LOKENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
GRAM-JALONI, THANA AMBAH, DISTRICT-
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KULDEEP SINGH TOMAR S/O NARENDRA
2
SINGH TOMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM-JALONI, THANA
AMBAH, DISTRICT-MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SMT. PRITI DEVI D/O NARENDRA SINGH
TOMAR W/O BHUPENDRA SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
GRAM-JALONI, THANA AMBAH, DISTRICT-
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.APARNA SINGH - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This Misc. Appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act has been filed against the award dated 24.11.2021 passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Case
No.OA/IIu/BPL/322/2018 by which a compensation of Rs.8 lac has
been awarded.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that
deceased Usha Devi died in a vehicular accident on 10.5.2016. It is the
case of the claimant no.1 Narendra Singh Tomar that he along with his
wife Usha Devi, daughter Manju and other relatives were going to
Ujjain for taking holy dip during the Kumbh Mela. After taking the
holy dip, they returned to Guna and from Guna railway station after
purchasing ticket they were to travel to Gwalior on the strength of a
valid second class journey ticket. They had planned to board Bhind
Gwalior Passenger train. On 10.5.2016 owing to the Kumbh mela,
there was heavy rush in the said train. Deceased Usha Devi was trying
to board the train. Owing to sudden movement of the train and heavy
crowd and push of passengers, she lost her balance and fell down. As
a result of the said fall, she suffered grievous injuries. Injured Usha
Devi was immediately taken to District Hospital, Guna but she died on
her way to the Hospital. The said incident was informed by Dy.
Station Manager Guna to GRP Thana Guna.
3. The respondent Railway Administration contested the case by filing
written statement and DRM report, R-1. Respondent has specifically
denied that there was an untoward incident as defined under section
123(c)(2) r/w 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. It was further denied
that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.
4. Challenging the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal it is
submitted by counsel for the appellant that the ticket was purchased at
5.54 PM whereas the incident also took place at the very same time
and thus it is clear that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
Further more, it is submitted that the untoward incident took place on
10.5.2016 and therefore, the amendment in compensation amount
which came into force w.e.f. January, 2017 will not be applicable and
the Claims Tribunal has committed a material illegality by awarding
compensation of Rs.8 Lacs whereas on the date of incident a
compensation of Rs.4 Lacs was payable.
5. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
claimants. It is submitted that time of departure of train from railway
station was 5.55 PM and the ticket was purchased at 5.54 PM and
while the deceased was trying to board the train she fell down and
succumbed to the injuries and thus it cannot be said that the deceased
was not a bonafide passenger. It is further submitted that since the
judgment was passed after the amendment came into force, therefore,
the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.8 Lacs has been rightly
awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not ?
7. Counsel for the appellant has tried to claim that since the ticket was
purchased at 5.54 PM and the untoward incident took place at the very
same time, therefore, it is clear that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger. Timing of departure of the train was 5.55 PM and
admittedly the ticket was purchased before the departure of the train.
The case of the appellant is that while the deceased was trying to board
the train she fell down and succumb to the injuries. Since the ticket
was purchased prior to departure of the train and the timing of the
incident is more or less similar, therefore, it cannot be said that the
deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Accordingly, the Claims
Tribunal did not commit any mistake by holding that the deceased was
a bonafide passenger and she died in an untoward incident.
Amount of compensation.
8. By way of amendment in the notification issued under section 124A of
the Railways Act, the compensation was enhanced from Rs.4 lacs to
Rs.8 Lacs w.e.f. 1.1.2017. Thus, the only question for consideration is
as to whether the compensation payable on the date of accident is to be
awarded or the compensation payable on the date of judgment is to be
awarded.
9. The cause of action will determine the quantum of compensation. The
cause of action arose on 10.5.2016, i.e. the date of accident. Any
amendment which is not procedural in nature does not have a
retrospective operation. The amount of compensation cannot be said to
be a procedural law. It is a substantive law and it is well established
principle of law that any amendment in substantive law has to be
treated as prospective unless and until it is specifically made
retrospective. Passing of a judgment cannot be said to be a cause of
action for determining the quantum of compensation. Further more,
the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi,
reported in (2019)3 SCC 572 has held as under :-
"19. 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. ......."
10. From the plain reading of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme
court it is clear that the compensation is payable which is applicable on
the date of accident and the rate of interest may differ from time to
time on the pattern as in accident claim cases.
11. Therefore, the rate of interest may fluctuate from time to time; but, the
compensation which was applicable on the date of accident is payable.
12. In the present case, the untoward incident took place on 10.5.2016 and
undisputedly on the said date the amount of compensation payable to
the claimants was Rs.4 lacs. Accordingly, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly awarded
compensation amount of Rs.8 Lacs. Accordingly, it is held that the
respondents/claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4 Lacs
instead of Rs.8 Lacs. The compensation shall be divided amongst the
respondents in the same ratio in which it has been done by the Claims
Tribunal.
13. No other argument is advanced by counsel for the appellant.
14. With aforesaid modification, the award dated 24.11.2021 passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Case
No.OA/IIu/BPL/322/2018 is hereby affirmed.
15.The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed to the extent mentioned
above.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
HEMANT SARAF
2023.04.05 18:49:04 +05'30'
HS
