Patna High Court
Smt. Uttam Devi vs The Union Of India on 14 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.414 of 2019
======================================================
Smt. Uttam Devi, aged about 40 years, Gender- Female, Wife of Late
Rajkumar Gupta @ Raju Sah, Resident of Mohalla- West Mohan Bigha,
Dehri, P.O. Dehri (Dalmiyanagar), P.S.- Dehri, District- Rohtas (Bihar).
... ...Respondent/s / Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hazipur.
... ...Applicant/s / Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate
For the UOI : Ms. Kanak Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 14-05-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well
as learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The instant appeal has been filed for setting
aside the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2018 passed in
Review Application No. 130 of 2018 by the learned Railway
Claim Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'R.C.T.')
whereby and where under the aforesaid review application filed
by the respondent Railway at belated stage to reduce the rate of
awarded interest on awarded compensation amount based on old
rate on the basis of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Tahazathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. v. U.O.I reported in
2009 ACJ 2444 has been allowed.
3. The brief facts, as alleged in the main original
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
2/15
application, are that on 20.07.2009, Shri Rajkumar Gupta @
Raju Sah (husband of the applicant) (hereinafter referred as
deceased) along with his co-passenger Shri Gopal Sah after
purchasing a valid second class train-ticket, from Anugrah
Narayan Road Railway Station for going to destination point at
Dehri-on-Sone Junction, had boarded the train No. 741 Up
(Gaya-Mughalsarai Fast Passenger train) at Anugrah Narayan
Road Railway Station. It is alleged that there was heavy rush of
passengers in the general compartment of the train. Therefore,
he was forced to travel by standing near the gate inside the
coach of the train. It is alleged that due to sudden jerk of the
train coupled with intense jostling of passenger, he could not
maintain his balance and he had accidentally fallen down from
the running train between Chiraila Pothu Halt and Sone-Nagar
Junction.
4. The present appellant filed a claim application
for the grant of compensation of Rs.4 Lacs on account of death
of her husband before the learned court below vide OA0008 of
2010 which was decided on merit on 09.03.2016 in presence of
both the parties granting compensation of Rs. 4 Lacs along with
the interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim
application within the period of 60 days from the date of
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
3/15
submission of bank mandate, failing which, additional interest
@ 2% p.a. as penal interest shall be payable on the entire
awarded sum from the date of filing of the claim application till
the date of actual payment.
5. The review application filed before the
Railway Claim Tribunal, Patna Branch by the Railway on the
point of rate of interest and the period for which the interest is
payable on the amount of compensation awarded in the
impugned judgment. Four review applications have been
decided having the common question involved in the said
review applications. The learned R.C.T., vide its judgment/
order dated 27.11.2018, disposed of all the review applications
with directions that in respect of award passed before
01.01.2017
, the Railway to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum
on the principal amount from the date of registration till the date
of award and 9% from the date of award to the date of payment.
The learned R.C.T. relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors Vs. U.O.I.
reported in 2009 SC 3098 and Union of India Vs. Rina Devi
reported in (2018) 2 PLJR (SC) 447. The Division Bench of this
tribunal in bunch of 46 review applications (E.C. Railway Vs.
Santosh Kumar and 45 other review applications) has observed
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
in para- 10, 11 and 12 as under:
"10. in most of the cases the untoward
incidents pertained to periods before
01.01.2017 when higher amount of
compensation was awarded. During all the
time and up to decision of Union of India
Vs. Rina Devi, we have already observed
that the tribunals had been following
Sarabi Vs. Union of India and providing
for different rates of interest, namely, 6%
from the date of registration of the
application till the date of award and 9%
from the date of award to the date of
payment. This Tribunal itself has awarded
interest from the date of application till the
date of award and 9% from the date of
award till date of payment. Since, we are
told that the most of the cases were decided
before 01.01.2017, when the old rate of
compensation was existing, we will pass
orders to accommodate two categories of
cases (1) cases which were decided before
01.01.2017, which have remained
unsatisfied and (i) cases which were
decided after 01.01.2017 in respect of
incidents that have taken place before
01.01.2017 that have remained unsatisfied
in respect of enhanced claim from 4 lacs to
Rs.8 lacs for death and injuries, following
Rathi Memon V Union of India (2001) 3
SCC 714 and Union of India Vs Rina Devi
(Supra) in respect of the first category of
cases decided before 01.01.2017 we will
allow all review applications to apply rate
of interest at 6% on the principal amount
from the date of registration till the date of
award and @ 9% from the date of award to
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
the date of payment In respect of awards
passed after 01.01.2017 providing for
enhanced compensation or double the
amount over what was originally provided
under the scheduled before 01.01.2017, the
rate of interest shall be on the higher
amount at 9% from the date of award till
the date of payment in all the second
category of cases, the application of interest
is not done from the date of incident, only
because on the date of incident when the
case of action arose, the amount payable
was enhanced and hence when we are
providing for the higher amount of
compensation by applying Rina Devi in the
light of reasons contained in Para 19 of the
said judgment.
Compensation as applicable on the date of
the accident has to be given with
reasonable interest and to give effect to the
mandate of beneficial legislation, if
compensation as provided on the date of
want of the tribunal is higher than
unrevised amount with interest, the higher
of the two amounts has to be.
11 The higher of the two amounts being the
amount brought through the amended
notification on the date of the award, the
higher amount shall be given with interest
on the date when the adjudication is made.
The counsel, Shri K.M. Murari has referred
to a citation, Sureshchandra Bagmal
Doshi and another Vs. New India
Assurance Co Ltd and others in 2018 ACJ
1434 passed by two judges, allowed the
award already made by the Tribunal where
the interest was provided @ 12% in a
Motor Accident claim it must be noticed
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
that the rate of interest was self not a point
of discussion in the said judgment The
decision in Sarabi, which was approved in
Mohamad decided on the liability for
interest only, but not the rate of interest The
same way Suresh Chandra Bagmal Doshi
(Supra) must be taken as having considered
the ability for interest, not merely the rate.
There are specific decisions of the Supreme
Court that dealt with the rate of interest it
was 12% interest from the year 1989 to
early 2001 Some of the leading decisions
where the rate of interest that could be
awarded in motor accident claim at 12%
were: (i) Urmila Pandey V Khalid Ahmed
(1994) 4 SCC 207,(ii) Haj Zainullah Khan
V Nagar Mahapalika (1994) 5 SCC 667
and (iii) United India Insurance Company
V Narendra Pandurang Kadam and
another (1995) 1 SCC 320. The rate of
interest fell to 9% in 2001 when due to fall
in interest rates, the Supreme Court held
that instead of 12%, only the reduced rate
had to be provided for in Kaushnuma
Begum V New India Assurance Company
Limited (2001) 2 SCC 9. This reduced rate
prevailed in Supre Deo v National
Insurance Co Lid (2001) 4 ACC 513. Rates
of interest men gradually fell further in the
years after 2004, if we notice other
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
such as. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
(2001) V Patricia Jean Mahajan (2002) 6
SCC 281 where the court reduced the
interest awarded by the High Court to 8%.
Stating that award of interest is
compensation for forbearance or retention
of money by the defendant, the rates of
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
interest stood below 8%, viz, at 7.5% in
many of cases, such as Abale Bezbaruah V
Geological Survey of India (2003) 3 SCC
148, Now India Assurance Co Ltd V
Charlie (2005) 10 SCC 720, New India
Assurance Co V statender (2006) 13 SCC
60 TNSTC v Sripriya (2007) 13 SCC 641;
APSRTC v Hemalatha and others (2008) 6
SCC 7 67. There were also cases where the
interest granted was as low as 5% (Kamala
Mangal Vayam V United India Insurance
Co Ltd (2010) 12 SCC 488) and 6% in
many cases (Arunkumar Agarwal v
National Insurance Co Ltd (2010) 9 SCC
218), Ibrahim v Raju and others (2011) 10
SCC 634, Rekha Jain V United India
Assurance Co (2013) 8 SCC 389. The
upward swing to 9% took place only after
2013. Il was not however consistent but
sporadic. See Josephine James V United
India Insurance Co Ltd. (2013) 6 SCC 711,
Makela v Malathi (2014) 11 SCC 178
Sarala Devi v Royal Sundaram Insurance
Co (2014) 15 SCC 450 and Jintendra
Khimshankar Vs Kasam Devi (2015) 4 SCC
237. It fell to 8% (Dinesh Kumar V
National Insurance Co Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC
750 but appears to have stabilized through
two 3 member judgments at 9% (Jagdish v
Mohan (2018) 4 SCC 571: Nishan Singh v
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd (2018) 6 SCC
765. The preponderance of interest has
been only 9% in motor accident cases since
2013 and that shall be the interest applied
in all cases of the second category set out
above. There are also cases where
accidents/untoward incident have taken
places after 01.01.2017, but we are not
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
addressing the said situation in any of the
review application.
12. As regards the verification that is
required to be made to ensure that the
amounts awarded to reach the claimants,
there shall be uniform application of the
principle that the award is meant to the
families of the deceased victim called the
dependents or injured victims and only the
fee is to the lawyer, it cannot be a reverse
situation. A litigant, who is illiterate and
who is drawn from distant places must have
access or information that the amount has
been credited to his or her account and he
or she can reach the Bank only near the
place of his/her residence"
6. Aggrieved by the said impugned
judgment/order, the original applicant/appellant has filed this
appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that pursuant to order dated 09.03.2016, the appellant submitted
bank mandate on 02.06.2016 but no payment of compensation
amount as per order has been made and as such, an execution
application on behalf of the appellant was filed on 21.10.2016
bearing no. 795 of 2016, after four months from the date of
submission of bank mandate. He further submitted that
respondent railway, despite acknowledge the bank mandate sat
silent for a period of 22 months over the compliance of the order
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
dated 26.04.2016 and all of sudden, a review application was
filed on 12.03.2018 before the learned court below on frivolous
and baseless ground with malafide intention to harass the
appellant from not getting the statutory compensation amount as
per order. The review application was registered on priority
basis vide no. 130 of 2018 and notices were sent to appear and
file reply, if any, in the present subject matter and the review
application was heard along with batch cases and allowed on
27.11.2018, without considering the material available on
record, reducing the rate of awarded interest and accordingly,
the respondent railway was directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a.
on awarded sum from the date of filing of the claim application
till the date of order and thereafter @ 9% p.a. till actual payment
of the compensation amount and hence, this appeal.
7.i. Learned counsel further submitted that while
passing the impugned order on 27.11.2018, a land mark decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court has come into force w.e.f.
09.05.2018, U.O.I. Vs. Rina Devi (supra), in which their
Lordship have observed in paragraph-15.4
"that if the amount so calculated is less
than the amount prescribed as on the date
of award of the Tribunal, the claimant will
be entitled to higher of the two amounts".
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
7.ii. In view of Hon'ble Apex Court decision, the
appellant was entitled to Rs. 8 Lacs as prescribed amount on the
date of impugned order under appeal since the proceeding of the
review application filed by the railway is in continuation of
proceeding of the execution case bearing no. 795 of 2016,
arising out of original order dated 09.03.2016 passed in case No.
OA0008 of 2010 but the learned tribunal without considering
the very land mark decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
allowed the review application filed by the respondent railway,
reducing the rate of awarded interest which is not sustainable in
the eye of law. As per impugned order under appeal, the
respondent railway has paid a sum of Rs. 1,28,966/- (Rs. One
Lac Twenty-eight Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-six) each to
the appellant and her children and thus, total amount paid to the
tune of Rs. 6,44,830/- (Rs. Six Lacs Forty-four Thousand Eight
hundred thirty) on 30.06.2020, as would evident from the
paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent
railway, which is less than the amount prescribed in terms of the
land mark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court U.O.I. Vs. Rina
Devi (supra). The amount of Rs. 8 Lacs is due on 27.11.2018,
the date of impugned order and this amount carry further
interest @ 6% p.a. in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
Court, Savitri Devi & Ors Vs. U.O.I. dated 03.01.2025 in SLP
No. 11444 of 2022.
8. Learned counsel at last contended that the
learned court below has committed gross error not considering
the land mark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court while passing
the impugned order, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside in the interest of justice. The respondent railway must be
directed to pay the amount prescribed i e Rs 8 Lacs with further
interest @ 6% p.a. in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, as referred to above and the amount so paid on
30.06.2020 will be deducted and the rest amount will be paid to
the appellant in terms of order passed by the co-ordinate bench
of this Hon'ble Court.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent/Railway has submitted that untoward incident
pertained to period before 01.01.2017 and the higher amount of
compensation was awarded and following the case of
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi Vs Union of India (supra), the
R.C.T. providing for different rates of interest, namely, 6% from
the date of registration of application till the date of award and
9% from the date of award to the date of payment. Learned
counsel has further submitted that a gazette notification was
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
issued by the Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016 for death,
the amount has been increased from Rs. 4 lakhs to 8 lakh that
came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2017. It is finally submitted that in
compliance of the impugned order in review application of the
learned R.C.T., Patna, Railway has already deposited the
compensation amount of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest Rs.
1,28,966/-, i.e. total amount of Rs. 5,28,966 with the R.C.T.
Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for Railways that
the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and considering the submissions made by them, it
appears that there is no dispute with respect to the liability of
Railways to the appellant, however, the dispute is with respect
to the amount of interest and the total amount payable in view of
the principle laid down in Rina Devi case (supra).
11. In Union of India Vs. Dilip & Ors. reported
in 2019 SCC Online SC 2119 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
granted interest @ 7.5% per annum. It is brought to the notice
that after the date of accident and filing the claim application,
Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Rules, 1990 were amended w.e.f. 01.01.2017. In Rina Devi
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that whenever it
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
is found that the revised amount of applicable compensation as
on the date of award of the Tribunal is less than the prescribed
amount of compensation as on the date of accident with interest,
higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded on the principle
of beneficial legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded
that the 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 the accident claim
cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount
prescribed as on the date of award of Tribunal, the applicant will
be entitled to higher of the two amounts.
12. The said judgment was further explained by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Radha Yadav
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410 and the said view was also
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs.
Dilip & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2119 and
Kamukayi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 642.
13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
similar case of Smt. Sapna Sharma Vs. Union of India (Misc.
Appeal No. 116 of 2018) vide order dated 12.12.2022 in
paragraphs 6 and 7 held as follows: -
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
"6. However, learned counsel for the
Railways concedes on the point that in view
of gazette notification issued by the
Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016 for
death, the amount has been increased to Rs.
8 lakh and as such to end the confusion on
the interest point, the amount can be
enhanced to Rs. 8 lakhs if the amount so
calculated is less than the amount awarded
in view of the Apex Court decision in Union
of India Vs. Dilip & Ors. reported in 2019
SCC OnLine SC 2119.
7. Taking into account the aforesaid facts,
the order dated 21.11.2016 as also the
order dated 27.11.2018 are modified to the
extent that the appellant shall be entitled to
Rs. 8 lakhs if the amount is awarded with
interest is less than it."
14. Considering the aforesaid facts and settled
law, the judgment/ order dated 09.03.2016 in O.A. No. 0008 of
2010 and judgment/order dated 27.11.2018 in Review
Application No. 130 of 2018 are modified to the extent that the
appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 8 lakhs in view of the fact that
admittedly the amount of compensation awarded with interest
vide the impugned judgment/order dated 27.11.2018 is less than
it. The amount that has already been disbursed shall be deducted
from Rs. 8 lakhs. The amount of compensation be satisfied by
the respondent/Railways within a period of two months from the
date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
Patna High Court MA No.414 of 2019 dt.14-05-2025
15. With the aforesaid observations and
modification in the impugned order, this appeal is disposed of.
16. Office is directed to send back the trial court
records and proceedings along with a copy of this judgment to
the trial court, forthwith, for necessary compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 08.05.2025
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date N/A
