Telangana High Court
N.Kullayamma And 3 Ors vs The South Central Railway on 28 June, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1039 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants aggrieved by
the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short "The Tribunal"),
Secunderabad Bench in O.A.A.No.137 of 2006 dated 20.07.2012.
2. The appellants are the wife and children of the deceased N.Adinarayana
Reddy, who died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train.
3. The case of the applicants as per the claim application filed by them
under Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 was that the deceased
with a view to go to the house of his cousin Malreddy at Dharmavaram to
collect an amount of Rs.5,000/-, proceeded to Mulakalacheruvu Railway Station
accompanied by his second son N.Sivashankar Reddy on the morning of
03.09.2004 at about 11:30 AM. He purchased a journey ticket from
Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram and boarded Train No.247 Pakala-Guntakal
Passenger in general compartment. While travelling, he slipped and fell down
accidentally from the running train near Dharmavaram Railway Station,
sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot on the evening of
03.09.2004.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
4. The respondent Railways filed written statement denying the claim of the
applicants contending that the claim would not fall within the ambit of Section
123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. As per the inquest report,
the deceased was hit by an un-known train and the ticket No.98598 mentioned
in the inquest report was not issued from Mulakalacheruvu. As per the final
report, the death of the deceased was due to hit by an un-known train and the
dead body was found between Dharmavaram and Chigicherla Railway Stations
at Kilometer No.181/1-2, which was beyond Dharmavaram Railway Station.
As such, the ticket was not a valid ticket.
5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
i) Whether the applicants were dependants of the deceased?
ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.247 Pakala-
Guntakal Passenger travelling from Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram on
03.09.2004?
iii) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental
fall from the said train?
iv) To what relief?
6. The applicant No.3, the son of the deceased by name N.Sivashankar
Reddy was examined as AW.1. They also got examined another witness, who
stated that he saw AW.1 purchasing a passenger train journey ticket to travel
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
from Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram for the deceased, was examined as
AW.2. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the applicants. The respondent
got examined the Deputy Station Superintendent (for short "DSS"),
Dharmavaram at the relevant time of the incident as RW.1 and got marked
Exs.R1 and R2. Ex.R1 was the P.N. Exchange Report and Ex.R2 was the
Divisional Railway Manager's report. The Case Diary file in Crime No.26 of
2004 of Government Railway Police (for short "GRP") was summoned by the
Court and marked as Ex.C1 through CW.1.
7. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record concluded that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The dead
body was found beyond the destination station of the deceased. The ticket
found in the pocket of the deceased was wet with rain water. The lower part of
the ticket was torn. Except the last three digits, no other numbers on the ticket
were legible. One layer on the reverse side of the ticket appeared to have been
removed intentionally to suppress the date of issue, as such, disbelieved that the
deceased accidentally fell from train No.247 Pakala-Guntakal Passenger. The
Tribunal observed that on the other hand, as per the Divisional Railway
Manager Report (for short "DRM") report, the deceased while crossing the
railway bridge was hit by un-known train on the morning of 04.09.2004 prior to
07:30 hours, as such the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and his death
was not on account of an untoward incident.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
8. Aggrieved by the said order of the RCT passed in O.A.A.No.137 of 2006,
the applicants preferred this appeal contending that the order of the Tribunal
was perverse. The Tribunal failed to consider the deposition of AW.2, who
categorically deposed that he witnessed the son of the deceased purchasing the
ticket at booking counter from Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram for his father
and stated that he and the deceased boarded the said train. Inspite of the
respondent not adducing any evidence, the Tribunal taking contrary view that
the ticket which was found with the deceased was not genuine was incorrect and
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina
Devi1, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Suman Sharma v. Union of
India 2, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kandrakota Santha W/o.Late
Prabhakar Rao v. Union of India represented by its General Manager,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad3, of the judgment of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Union of India represented by its General Manager,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad4, of the High Court of Telangana in
Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway,
Secunderabad 5 and in A.Sreenivasa Rao and Another v. Union of India,
Secunderabad6 and in Monika Gogoi Sonowal v. Union of India represented
2018 ACJ 1441
2018 ACJ 2849
C.M.A.No.849 of 2005 dated 18.06.2010
C.M.A.No.785 of 2008 dated 22.12.2011
C.M.A.No.716 of 2010 dated 20.06.2023
C.M.A.No.862 of 2017 dated 22.04.2022
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad7 and prayed
to set aside the order of the RCT.
9. Heard Ms.Geeta Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellants - applicants.
There was no representation by the Standing Counsel for the Central
Government for the respondent Railways. Though several opportunities were
given to submit their arguments, they failed to appear before this Court.
10. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the
Tribunal is correct, legal and proper?
11. On a perusal of the evidence of applicant No.3, who was examined as
AW.1, the second son of the deceased, he stated that they were residents of
Buchipalle Village, Hamlet of Katnagallu Post, PTM Mandal, Chitttoor District.
His father was an agriculturist. Mulakalacheruvu was the nearest railway
station to their village, which was at a distance of 7 kilometers, the place of
incident was about 68 kilometers from Mulakalacheruvu. His father with a
view to go to the house of his cousin Malreddy at Dharmavaram to collect some
amount due from him, went to Mulakalacheruvu Railway Station. He dropped
him on his motor bike on the morning of 03.09.2004 at about 11:30 AM. He
purchased a passenger train journey ticket from Mulakalacheruvu to
Dharmavaram for his father. His father boarded Train No.247 Pakala-Guntakal
C.M.A.No.64 of 2022 dated 28.11..2022
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
passenger in general compartment and left to Dharmavaram by the said train in
his presence. He stated that after the departure of the said train, he returned
home. His father did not return home even after four (04) days from
Dharmavaram. As such, their family members made enquirities with relatives,
friends and well-wishers, but in vain. After a week, on enquiry, his family
members approached Railway Police, Kadiri. A constable alone was available
in the police station and he informed them that a male dead body aged about 55
years was found on 04.09.2004 in between Dharmavaram and Chigicherla
Railway Station and was buried by the Railway Police, Dharmavaram after
necessary formalities. He asked them to come back after one week to get all the
details of the deceased as all the other railway police including the Sub-
Inspector (for short "SI") went on Special Duty to Rajahmundry for Godavari
Pushkaram. Again, they went to the Railway Police, Kadiri to get the details of
the deceased. They were informed by the railway police, who were available on
duty that the relevant record along with photographs was kept under the custody
of SI, GRP and asked them to come back after ten (10) days, as the concerned
SI did not return from the special duty of Godavari Pushkaram, Rajahmundry.
Accordingly they all went to GRP, Kadiri on 05.10.2004. They were shown the
photographs, clothes, passenger train journey ticket from Mulakalacheruvu to
Dharmavaram pertaining to the deceased for identification and immediately
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
they identified the deceased as their father basing on the clothes and journey
ticket belonging to him.
11.1. He further stated that on observing the panchanama and final report, it
was mentioned that his father was hit by an un-known train and succumbed to
injuries, which was wrong and baseless. They tried to change the statements
through railway police, but they were not allowed to change the statements. He
further stated that the train journey ticket of his deceased father as was shown in
the FIR was kept in the GRP records, Dharmavaram and it appeared that the
said train journey ticket of his deceased father was checked up and punched by
the Train Ticket Examiner (for short "TTE") during the course of his journey.
12. In his cross-examination, he stated that 25 days after the incident, they
came to know that their father's dead body was found near Dharmavaram. The
police informed them that the dead body was buried after taking photographs
and preserving his clothes and articles. Only the photographs of his father's
clothes and ticket were shown to them for their identification. He stated that
they asked for a photo copy of the ticket, but the police did not hand it over to
them.
13. A witness who belonged to the same village, a third party was examined
as AW.2. He stated that he was a native of Buchipalle Village, Katnagallu Post,
but was settled at Hyderabad. He was working as a painter. He used to visit his
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
native village to see his mother, who was living there. Accordingly, he went to
his native place and went to Mulakalacheruvu Railway Station with a view to
go to Kadiri on his personal work on the forenoon of 03.09.2004. There he met
the deceased and his son at the booking counter and saw AW.1 purchasing a
passenger train journey ticket from Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram for his
father (deceased) and he also took a passenger ticket from Mukalacheruvu to
Kadiri and they both boarded Train No.247 Pakala-Guntakal passenger in
general compartment.
13.1. He further stated that he travelled along with the deceased up to Kadiri
and got down there. He returned to his village from Kadiri on the same day
evening and after two days returned to Hyderabad. One month later, when he
went to his village, he came to know about the accident to the deceased through
his mother. Immediately, he went to the house of the deceased and learnt that
the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train No.247
Pakala-Guntakal Passenger near Dharmavaram Railway Station and his body
was also buried by the railway police after completion of all formalities.
14. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his evidence.
15. Thus, the evidence of AWs.1 and 2 would disclose that AW.1 purchased
a train ticket to his father from Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram and boarded
him in the train No.247, Pakala-Guntakala Passenger in general compartment,
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
which was also affirmed by AW.2 and stated that he also travelled in the same
train and in the same compartment along with the deceased. But, he got down
at Kadiri Station.
16. The FIR issued by the Station House Officer of GRP, Dharmavaram vide
FIR No.26 of 2004 dated 04.09.2004, was marked as Ex.A1. As per the FIR,
the Deputy Station Superintendent of Dharmavaram gave the message, wherein
it was stated that key man, Gang No.II by name Sri P.Narsimhulu reported to
CASM/A Sri N.Chandra Sekhar at 07:30 AM on 04.09.2004 that a male dead
body was lying on track at Kilometer No.181/1-2, bridge No.III, meter gauge
between Dharmavaram and Chigicherla. A photo of the torn ticket was also
affixed on the FIR. Only the last three digits of it were visible as "598". The
ticket was taken for the journey from Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram.
Ex.A2 was the inquest report conducted by the railway police Head Constable
No.362, Dharmavaram, RPS on 04.09.2004 at 12:30 hours at kilometer
No.181/1-2 at meter gauge, Bridge No.III at the place of accident. It was stated
to be in between Dharmavaram and Chigicherla Railway Stations. It was
reported in the inquest that the dead body was found at 07:30 hours on
04.09.2004 near Bridge No.III at the end of Railway Bridge by the side of
railway track by P.Narsimhulu, S/o.Babaiah, an on duty key man, Gang No. II,
ID.No.526. It was stated that the corpse was lying in prone position on the iron
sleepers. It was recorded that a journey ticket bearing No.98598 from
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram was found in the side pocket of drawer of
the deceased and the said ticket was wet with rain water. One piece in the lower
part of the ticket was torn. Except the above mentioned clothes and ticket, there
were no other silver, gold and cash on the corpse. The injuries on the body
were noted as: 1) severe blood injury on the forehead of the corpse, 2) right leg
was cut above the thigh and hanging, 3) left leg was totally cut and crushed by
the wheels of the train and 4) a bleeding injury on the right hand. As per the
opinion of the panch witnesses, while the deceased was going on the bridge by
foot, he was hit by an un-known meter gauge train, proceeding on
Dharmavaram to Chigicherla route, sustained bleeding injuries, due to which
the death occurred. As per the inquest panchanama marked under Ex.A2, no
blood relatives were present at the time of conducting the inquest and there were
no eye-witnesses also. Thus, the opinion given by the panch witnesses was
based on their observation of the corpse, on assumptions. Ex.A3 is the Post-
Mortem Examination (for short "PME") report, which would disclose that the
cause of death of the deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple
injuries around 36 to 40 hours prior to PME. Ex.A4 is the death certificate of
the deceased issued by the MRO, Ex.A5 is the identification certificate issued
by the Railway Police Head Constable - 362 of Kadiri, RPS and Ex.A6 is the
Family Member Certificate showing that the applicants are the family members
of the deceased.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
17. The respondent Railways got examined the DSS of Dharmavaram as
RW.1. RW.1 stated that as per the application details, the alleged place of
incident falls out of the way of the journey travelled by the deceased. Hence,
the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The alleged point where the dead
body was found was after 3 kilometers distance from the station. In his cross-
examination, he stated that he did not give any message to the GRP and he did
not know as to how his name was appearing in the FIR. Thus, this witness
denied that he was the person, who gave the message to the GRP, basing on
which the FIR was registered. The Tribunal summoned the case diary in Crime
No.26 of 2004 of Dharmavaram Railway Police Station and the same was
produced by the RPHC - 76, who was examined as CW.1. His evidence is not
material for the disposal of the case.
18. The register of exchange of private numbers was marked as Ex.R1 and
the DRM report was marked as Ex.R2. It would reveal that the investigation
was conducted by the Inspector, RPF, Ananthapur, which was accepted by the
DRM.
19. As per the investigation conducted by the Inspector of RPF, Ananthapur,
he caused enquiry with the Station Superintendent of Mulakalacheruvu, who
revealed that ticket No.61598 was issued in the month of April, 2004 and serial
No.98598, which was with the deceased was not issued from Mulakalacheruvu
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
Railway Station. He stated that the deceased was having an old railway ticket
with him of his early journey. The ticket bearing No.98598 was not issued from
Mulakalacheruvu Railway Station. If the ticket number is considered as 61598
it was issued in the month of April, 2004. Hence, the ticket which was with the
deceased was not genuine one. Further, the ticket was for the journey from
Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram, whereas the body of the deceased was
found at Kilometer No.181/1-2 in between Dharmavaram and Chigicherla
Railway Stations, which would show that the ticket was no way concerned to
the death place. In the inquest report, in column No.15, it was mentioned that
the deceased while crossing the bridge without observing the train was hit by an
un-known train and died. As such, concluded that the deceased was not a
bonafide passenger and that the claim of the applicants could be rejected.
20. Basing on the said report filed by the DRM, the Tribunal considered that
the oral and documentary evidence produced by the applicants was not
satisfactory and dismissed the claim application filed by the applicants. The
Tribunal observed that except the last three digits, no other numbers on the
ticket were legible. One layer on the reverse side of the ticket appeared to have
been removed intentionally to suppress the date of issue.
21. But the Tribunal had not considered that who would be having such
intention to remove the layer of the ticket to suppress the date of issue, as the
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
blood relatives of the deceased were not present at the time when the dead body
was found or at the time when the inquest was conducted. As per the evidence
of AW.1, they came to know about the death of the deceased 25 days later and
the body was buried by the railway police themselves. Hence, the Tribunal had
not applied its mind while making such observations.
22. The evidence of AWs.1 and 2 would prove that AW.1 had purchased the
ticket to the deceased for his travel from Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram and
boarded him in the passenger Train No.247 Pakala-Guntakal in general
compartment and the evidence of AW.2 would disclose that he travelled in the
same train and in the same compartment along with the deceased, but he got
down earlier at Kadiri railway station. As per the FIR and the inquest report,
the journey ticket of the deceased was found in the side pocket of the drawer of
the deceased. It was also recorded that the said ticket was totally wet with rain
water and one piece in the lower part of the ticket was torn, due to which except
the last three digits of the ticket, the initial digits were not legible. The
Inspector of RPF, who conducted investigation verified two numbers 61598 and
9859 and stated that the ticket number 61598 was issued in the month of April,
2004 and the ticket at serial No.98598 was not issued from Mulakalacheruvu
Railway Station. But when the first two numbers were not legible or clear,
verifying only two ticket numbers with the last three digits as "598" and coming
to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger is considered
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
as improper. In several other cases, even when no ticket was found on the dead
body, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as several other High Courts dealt with
the issue, whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not and held as
follows:
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi in Civil Appeal
No.4945 of 2018, held that:
"Mere absence of ticket with such injured or
deceased will not negative the claim that he was
a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on
the claimant which can be discharged by filing
an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will
then shift on the Railways and the issue can be
decided on the facts shown or the attending
circumstances. This will have to be dealt with
from case to case on the basis of facts found."
24. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Suman Sharma
v. Union of India (cited supra), on this aspect held that:
"Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is
based on principle of no fault liability or strict
liability and mere non-recovery of ticket from
the possession of the deceased would not be a
ground to deny the benefit under Section 124-A.
Burden of proof lies on the Railways to prove
that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and
Railways failed to discharge its burden. No
evidence that deceased committed suicide or
was intoxicated and the incident falls within the
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989."
25. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kandrakota Santha W/o.Late
Prabhakar Rao v. The Union of India represented by The General
Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (cited supra), wherein as
per the facts of the said case, police seized the ticket at the time of holding
inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and the
said fact was specifically mentioned in the inquest report, held that after
sustaining the injuries, the deceased was taken to Government General Hospital,
Rajahmundry and thereafter the doctor examined and declared him dead at
12:30 PM. Since no other close relation accompanied the deceased and in view
of the fact that the dead body was in the mortuary of the Government Hospital
and thereafter the police conducted the inquest, there was no scope for any other
person to keep the ticket stealthily in the shirt pocket of the deceased.
26. In Union of India represented by The General Manager, South
Central Railway, Secunderabad v. Smt.P.Manjula and Others (cited supra),
this Court held that when the dead body was dragged to 50 yards, there is every
possibility of clothes getting torn and losing the ticket in the process and an
inference can be drawn to that effect that the deceased is a bonafide passenger
having regard to the realities, realistic and pragmatic approach of the question
involved.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
27. In The Union of India represented by the General Manager, South
Central Railway, Secunderabad v. K.Rangamma and Others (cited supra),
this Court basing upon the facts of the case, held that the claimants had
produced sufficient evidence by examining AWs.1 and 2 and also by exhibiting
documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A1 to A5 to show that the deceased
purchased ticket before travelling in the said train and thereby the deceased was
a bonafide passenger.
28. In A.Sreenivasa Rao and another v. Union of India, Secunderabad
(cited supra), this Court as per the facts of the case, held that there were no eye-
witnesses to the incident to support the report of DRM that deceased committed
suicide. For the reasons best known to the Railways, none of its officers
including the author of the DRM, were examined before the Tribunal. The
evidence of AW.2 would clearly disclose that he accompanied the deceased to
Railway Station, where the deceased purchased II Class journey ticket and in
his presence, the deceased boarded the train, the theory of suicide cannot be
accepted. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
29. In Monika Gogoi Sonowal v. The Union of India represented by its
General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (cited supra), this
Court held that:
"7. It is a settled law, in view of various
Judgments, that a passenger may not be allowed
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
to enter a platform if he does not possess a
platform ticket. It is an admitted fact that there
will be Train Ticket Examiner for all the trains
and the number of such TTE's will be more in
on super fast train and reserved compartments. It
is highly difficult for a person to travel long
distance from Bangalore to Nidadavolu where
the accident occurred without a ticket. He cannot
avoid such examination/check by the TTE right
from Bangalore to Nidadavolu. He has crossed
more than half of the journey by the time of the
accident. There is no dispute that the deceased
was traveling in second class reserve
compartment. Therefore, it shall be deemed that
he was having a ticket thereby he was a bonafide
passenger."
30. The applicants by examining AWs.1 and 2 had discharged the initial
burden laid upon them. The journey ticket found on the body of the deceased
also would show that he purchased a ticket for his journey from
Mulakalacheruvu to Dharmavaram. Just because the initial numbers of the
ticket were not visible, it could not be concluded that he was not a bonafide
passenger. Learned counsel for the appellants - applicants also filed newspaper
reports about a scam of printing false railway tickets with its centre at
Mulakalacheruvu and for not accounting tickets of the value of about Rs.19.00
lakhs. Due to this said scam, false tickets might have been issued by the Station
Master or the concerned Railway Staff. The passengers who purchased them
cannot be deprived of the compensation amount, for no fault of them. As the
proviso under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was in the nature of 'no
fault liability' or 'strict liability' also, unless the respondent Railway
Administration could prove that the case of the applicants would fall in any one
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
of the factors mentioned under the said proviso, the applicants are entitled for
compensation.
31. The other contention raised by the respondent Railways which was
accepted by the Tribunal was that the dead body was found 3 kilometers after
Dharmavaram and for the said reason also, he could not be considered as a
bonafide passenger, as his journey ought to have been ended at Dharmavaram.
As there is every possibility that the deceased might have slipped while getting
down at the station and that his body might have been dragged to some distance
from it, or that he mistakenly might not have got down at the station where he
has to get down and after realizing the same could have tried to get down after
crossing the same and as the untoward incident can be happened in several
contingencies, this Court would not accept the contention of the Railways. In
the present case, there were no direct witnesses to the incident. It was not in
dispute that the way in which the dead body was found would disclose that the
death of the deceased occurred on account of an accident. No evidence was
adduced by the Railways to show that the death of the deceased occurred due to
any of the factors indicated under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways
Act, 1989. The Railways failed to examine the driver of any meter gauge train
to prove that the deceased was hit by a meter gauge train and fell by the side of
the track, as stated in the inquest report. Thus, there is no basis for the opinion
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
expressed by the panchas in the inquest report that the deceased trespassed the
railway track at railway bridge No.III and hit by an un-known meter gauge train.
32. Coming to the compensation, in case of death in an accident which
occurred before amendment in 2013, the prevailing basic figure in respect of
death case was Rs.4.00 lakhs. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v.
Radha Yadav8, held that:
10. The issue raised in the matter does not really
require any elaboration as in our view, the
judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Devi
[2018 ACJ 1441 (SC)] 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 difference
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
(2004) 2 SCC 1
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
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.
33. The applicants are entitled for interest @ 7 % per annum on the
compensation amount as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kamukayi v. Union of India 9.
34. From the date of accident i.e. 03.09.2004 to the date of judgment i.e.
28.06.2024, the applicants are entitled for interest for 19 years 9 months 25 days
= 237 months 25 days. The interest calculated for 19 years 9 months 25 days at
the rate of 7% works out to Rs.5,54,912/-. Therefore, the interest along with the
compensation amount, to which the applicants are entitled prevailing at the time
of the accident, comes to Rs.9,54,912/- (Rs.4,00,000/- + Rs.5,54,912/-).
Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
35. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Radha Yadav's Case
(cited supra) if, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure was
more than Rs.8.00 lakhs, the applicants are entitled for higher of two figures.
As such, the applicants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.9,54,912/-
36. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the
judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.A.No.137 of 2012 dated
20.07.2012. The applicants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,54,912/- and
the compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants - applicants as
follows:
S. No. Appellants Amount to be distributed
1. Appellant No.1 (wife) Rs.3,54,912/-
2. Appellant No.2 Rs.2,00,000/-
3. Appellant No.3 Rs.2,00,000/-
4. Appellant No.4 Rs.2,00,000/-
30. The respondent Railways is directed to deposit the above awarded
compensation before the Tribunal within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellants -
claimants are entitled to withdraw the said compensation as apportioned above
without furnishing any security.
No order as to costs.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_1039_2012
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 28th June, 2024.
Nsk.
