Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 450 (KAR)

L. SRIDHAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-07-04

H.L.DATTU

body2000
H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, practising Chartered Accountant, in this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the constitutional validity or otherwise of Rules 3 and 4 of Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'rules' ). The impugned Rules are extracted and they are as under :3. Amount of compensation : (1) The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries, shall be as specified in the Schedule. (2) The amount of compensation payable for injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule but which, in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work, shall be rupees two lakhs. (3) The amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury (other than an injury specified in the Schedule or referred to in sub-rule (2) resulting in pain and suffering, shall be such as the Claims Tribunal may after taking into consideration medical evidence, besides other circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable :provided that if more than one injury is caused by the same accident, compensation shall be payable in respect of each such injury;provided further that the total compensation in respect of all such injuries shall not exceed rupees forty thousand. (4) Where compensation has been paid for any injury which is less than the amount which would have been payable as compensation if the injured person had died and the person subsequently died as a result of the injury, a further compensation equal to the difference between the amount payable for death and the already paid shall become payable. (5) Compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods or animals shall be paid to such extent as the Claims Tribunal may, in all the circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable. 4. Limit of compensation : Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 3, the total compensation payable under that rule shall in no case exceed rupees two lakh in respect of any one person. ( 2 ) ). These Rules are questioned on the ground that the schedule to the Rules impose an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction and inasmuch as there is no provision made with regard to awarding of compensation to certain category of injuries. ( 2 ) ). These Rules are questioned on the ground that the schedule to the Rules impose an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction and inasmuch as there is no provision made with regard to awarding of compensation to certain category of injuries. Secondly, Rules 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the Rules are irrational and unreasonable since the legislature has failed to provide for claiming higher and just compensation. Thirdly, it is stated that the Central Government cannot bring any discrimination amongst the users of any mode of transport, such as air, motor vehicle or railways, which are all carriers falling under different, Public Transport System by enacting different legislations fixing different rate of compensation in respect of death or injuries in an accident. Thus the rules suffer from the vice of discrimination and thus violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In so far as Rule 4 is concerned, it is stated that by fixing the limit at a maximum of Rs. 2 lakhs for death, it infringes the claimant's right to claim a just and fair compensation as per the general law of damages and, therefore, it is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Sri S. R. Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the grounds urged in the petition at the time of hearing of the petition. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have filed their statement of objections resisting the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. Sri Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel for respondents, ably justifies the impugned provisions. ( 4 ) THE Union Government in exercise of its powers conferred by S. 129 of Railways Act, 1989, has framed Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, in supersession of Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1989. The Rules have came into existence on the date of commencement of the Act. The dictionary clause provides for meaning of the expressions like 'accident, Claims Tribunal,' etc. Rules 3 and 4 provides for amount of compensation and limit of compensation. Schedule appended to the Rules provides for compensation payable for death or injuries. ( 5 ) CHAPTER XIII of the Railways Act, 1989, provides for liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 124 of the Act provides for extent of liability of Railway Administration for death or injury to a passenger in a railway accident. ( 5 ) CHAPTER XIII of the Railways Act, 1989, provides for liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 124 of the Act provides for extent of liability of Railway Administration for death or injury to a passenger in a railway accident. The said section is as under :"124. Extent of liability : When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recovery damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train sustained as a result of such accident. " ( 6 ) THE section provides for liability of railway administration for loss occasioned by death or injury of a passenger dying as a result of railway accident whether or not there has been any wrongful act on the part of the railway administration. The relief granted to the party affected is an alternative remedy apart from what he can claim under the law of torts or any other enactment in force. This section only provides a cheaper and more expeditious remedy but a limited remedy to be settled by Railway Claims Tribunal. If a person desires to claim a larger amount under law of torts, he is not prevented from approaching the Civil Courts, where he can prefer his claim. The compensation payable is as prescribed under Railway Accidents Compensation Rules to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident and for personal injury, loss and destruction of the property owned by the passenger sustained as a result of such accident. The compensation payable is as prescribed under Railway Accidents Compensation Rules to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident and for personal injury, loss and destruction of the property owned by the passenger sustained as a result of such accident. ( 7 ) RULE 3 of the Rules provides for payment of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as specified in the schedule. For the death of the passenger, the amount of compensation fixed is Rs. 2 lakhs. For the injuries mentioned in Part II of the Schedule, the amount of compensation is again the maximum of Rs. 2 lakhs and in Part III there are about nearly 34 different types of injuries and the amount of compensation fixed also varies ranging from Rs. 16,000/- to Rs. 1,80,000/ -. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is an exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3. It says that the amount of compensation payable for injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule can still be awarded by Railway Claims Tribunal, if it is of the opinion that the injury caused is such which deprives a person of all capacity to do any work shall be Rs. 2 lakhs. Sub-rule (3) of the Rules gives further discretion to the Claims Tribunal to award compensation in respect of any injury other than the injury specified in the schedule or referred to in sub-rule (2) of the Rules after taking into consideration the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case. ( 8 ) RULE 4 of the Rules prescribes the maximum amount of compensation payable notwithstanding what is contained in Rule 3 of the Rules. ( 9 ) THE schedule appended to the Rules provides for nearly 34 different type of injuries. Nevertheless in the absence of a specific injury not enumerated in the schedule, the rule gives ample discretion to the Railway Claims Tribunal to award compensation by taking into consideration the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case. Therefore, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively all the type of injuries that the Tribunal could award compensation, the non-specified injuries in the schedule can also be considered by the Tribunal for awarding compensation. Therefore, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively all the type of injuries that the Tribunal could award compensation, the non-specified injuries in the schedule can also be considered by the Tribunal for awarding compensation. In my opinion, it is beyond anybody's comprehension to exhaustively enumerate all the injuries in the schedule for the purpose of awarding compensation under the Rules. Therefore, merely because all types of injuries are not specified, it cannot be said that the rule is either arbitrary or illegal. ( 10 ) THE liability of Railway Administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers is provided in S. 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 124 provides that the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation for death and for personal injury and loss of accompanying goods owned by the passenger sustained as a result of such accident whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. The section also provides that the liability of the railway administration for payment of compensation to such an extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only. The Central Government in pursuance thereof has framed Rules called Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Rule 3 of the Rules provides for amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as specified in the schedule. In the schedule, there are three parts. Part I provides for compensation for death, Part II provides for compensation for total disablement and lastly, Part III provides for compensation for partial disablement. Earlier to the present provision, no compensation was payable by the Railway Administration to those injured or to the dependents of those died in a train accident that is not due to the negligence on the part of the railway administration or its servants. This had created lot of hardship to all classes of passengers. In order to remove this difficulty, the Parliament has introduced S. 124 of the Act by rendering railways liable to pay compensation in all train accidents whether due to negligence or not of the railways. But to limit the liability in such cases, it has authorised the Union Government to frame Rules. In order to remove this difficulty, the Parliament has introduced S. 124 of the Act by rendering railways liable to pay compensation in all train accidents whether due to negligence or not of the railways. But to limit the liability in such cases, it has authorised the Union Government to frame Rules. The intention seems to provide a sort of insurance to the passengers travelling in the trains, so that their heirs and legal representatives could be indemnified, if an accident takes place. This provision seems to be a form of insurance. Every ticket will carry such insurance, where by Railways undertakes that passengers travelling in their trains with valid tickets and permission would be paid a prescribed amount of compensation in case of death of the passengers to his dependents, legal heirs or representatives and in case of injury or loss of property, to the passenger himself in the event of accident taking place. In my opinion, provisions looks like a contract of insurance in the widest sense of the term, whereby one person called insurer undertakes in return for the agreed consideration on the premium to pay another person called the assured the sum of money on the happening of a specified event. In such cases the person insured cannot claim more than what has been insured. Similarly, a passenger in a train holding a valid ticket or a pass cannot claim more than what is specifically provided. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel Sri Shivaprakash that the Rules are illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, since the claimant is deprived of higher compensation by the Rules which are inflexible cannot be accepted. In my view, the object of S. 124 of the Act and the Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules are beneficial provisions for providing monetary help in the event of a passenger suffering injuries in an accident or giving compensation to the dependents of the deceased in the event of an accident taking place. Rules framed under the provisions prescribe the maximum benefit that a person would be entitled to under the relevant statutory provisions. The relief granted under these provisions is an alternative remedy apart from what he can claim under the law of torts or any other enactment in force. ( 11 ) THEN we come to the last contention urged by the learned counsel in support of the relief. The relief granted under these provisions is an alternative remedy apart from what he can claim under the law of torts or any other enactment in force. ( 11 ) THEN we come to the last contention urged by the learned counsel in support of the relief. The learned counsel says that there is hostile discrimination brought about by several legislation enacted by the Parliament such as Air Carriers Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, which provide for different standards and norms for awarding compensation for death and several types of injuries and disabilities suffered. Therefore, the rules suffers from the vice of discrimination and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. This argument is an argument of despair. Article 14 guarantees the general right of equality. Procedure prescribed under the statutory provisions must meet the challenge of Art. 14 and each law would be liable to be tested on the ambit of Art. 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statutory rule or rules affecting the civil right or results in civil consequences, would have to answer the requirement of Art. 14 of the Constitution. So the rules must be fair and just and must not be fanciful or arbitrary. Article 14 merely guarantees that persons placed in similar circumstances shall be treated alike. It does not guarantee the equal protection to the persons, who are not placed similarly and who are covered by two different enactments. It is well settled principle of law that the different enactments where the source of authority for two rules or regulations are different are not liable to attract under Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 12 ) THE respondents in their objections statement assert that the amount of compensation payable is enhanced from time to time keeping in view the rise in consumer price index. In the year 1974, the amount of compensation on account of death was only Rs. 50,000/- and which has been revised to Rs. 1 lakh in the year 1989 and further enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs in the year 1990 and at present, the amounts stands enhanced to Rs. 4 lakhs and they further assert that the rate of compensation paid by the Railway Administration cannot be compared to cases under Motor Vehicles Act or under Air Carriers Act. 1 lakh in the year 1989 and further enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs in the year 1990 and at present, the amounts stands enhanced to Rs. 4 lakhs and they further assert that the rate of compensation paid by the Railway Administration cannot be compared to cases under Motor Vehicles Act or under Air Carriers Act. In support of this assertion, they state that the amount of compensation payable by Railway Administration is not linked to earning capacity and other indices as has been gone in the case of Motor Vehicles Act and further this particular legislation cannot be compared to Air Carriers Act, since the Indian Railways have a low fare structure than that of Indian Airlines and the magnitude of traffic is much more than that of Indian Airlines. In my opinion, the first and foremost, the comparison that the petitioner is trying to project in this petition is impermissible and secondly by no stretch of imagination, petitioner can compare the persons travelling in trains with that of Air Carriers. They form totally different class altogether. As I have already observed, the Railway Administration assure its passengers irrespective of their earning capacity and other indices that they would get a prescribed amount in the event the accident takes place while travelling in their trains. The vice of discrimination pointed out by the learned counsel in my opinion has no basis whatsoever and the learned counsel cannot compare two different statutes which are made for two different situations. granted to the party affected is an alternative remedy apart from what he can claim under the law of torts or any other enactment in force. This section only provides a cheaper and more expeditious remedy but a limited remedy to be settled by Railway Claims Tribunal. If a person desires to claim a larger amount under law of torts, he is not prevented from approaching the Civil Courts, where he can prefer his claim. The compensation payable is as prescribed under Railway Accidents Compensation Rules to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident and for personal injury, loss and destruction of the property owned by the passenger sustained as a result of such accident. The compensation payable is as prescribed under Railway Accidents Compensation Rules to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident and for personal injury, loss and destruction of the property owned by the passenger sustained as a result of such accident. ( 7 ) RULE 3 of the Rules provides for payment of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as specified in the schedule. For the death of the passenger, the amount of compensation fixed is Rs. 2 lakhs. For the injuries mentioned in Part II of the Schedule, the amount of compensation is again the maximum of Rs. 2 lakhs and in Part III there are about nearly 34 different types of injuries and the amount of compensation fixed also varies ranging from Rs. 16,000/- to Rs. 1,80,000/ -. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is an exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3. It says that the amount of compensation payable for injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule can still be awarded by Railway Claims Tribunal, if it is of the opinion that the injury caused is such which deprives a person of all capacity to do any work shall be Rs. 2 lakhs. Sub-rule (3) of the Rules gives further discretion to the Claims Tribunal to award compensation in respect of any injury other than the injury specified in the schedule or referred to in sub-rule (2) of the Rules after taking into consideration the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case. ( 8 ) RULE 4 of the Rules prescribes the maximum amount of compensation payable notwithstanding what is contained in Rule 3 of the Rules. ( 9 ) THE schedule appended to the Rules provides for nearly 34 different type of injuries. Nevertheless in the absence of a specific injury not enumerated in the schedule, the rule gives ample discretion to the Railway Claims Tribunal to award compensation by taking into consideration the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case. Therefore, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively all the type of injuries that the Tribunal could award compensation, the non-specified injuries in the schedule can also be considered by the Tribunal for awarding compensation. Therefore, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively all the type of injuries that the Tribunal could award compensation, the non-specified injuries in the schedule can also be considered by the Tribunal for awarding compensation. In my opinion, it is beyond anybody's comprehension to exhaustively enumerate all the injuries in the schedule for the purpose of awarding compensation under the Rules. Therefore, merely because all types of injuries are not specified, it cannot be said that the rule is either arbitrary or illegal. ( 10 ) THE liability of Railway Administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers is provided in S. 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 124 provides that the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation for death and for personal injury and loss of accompanying goods owned by the passenger sustained as a result of such accident whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. The section also provides that the liability of the railway administration for payment of compensation to such an extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only. The Central Government in pursuance thereof has framed Rules called Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Rule 3 of the Rules provides for amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as specified in the schedule. In the schedule, there are three parts. Part I provides for compensation for death, Part II provides for compensation for total disablement and lastly, Part III provides for compensation for partial disablement. Earlier to the present provision, no compensation was payable by the Railway Administration to those injured or to the dependents of those died in a train accident that is not due to the negligence on the part of the railway administration or its servants. This had created lot of hardship to all classes of passengers. In order to remove this difficulty, the Parliament has introduced S. 124 of the Act by rendering railways liable to pay compensation in all train accidents whether due to negligence or not of the railways. But to limit the liability in such cases, it has authorised the Union Government to frame Rules. In order to remove this difficulty, the Parliament has introduced S. 124 of the Act by rendering railways liable to pay compensation in all train accidents whether due to negligence or not of the railways. But to limit the liability in such cases, it has authorised the Union Government to frame Rules. The intention seems to provide a sort of insurance to the passengers travelling in the trains, so that their heirs and legal representatives could be indemnified, if an accident takes place. This provision seems to be a form of insurance. Every ticket will carry such insurance, where by Railways undertakes that passengers travelling in their trains with valid tickets and permission would be paid a prescribed amount of compensation in case of death of the passengers to his dependents, legal heirs or representatives and in case of injury or loss of property, to the passenger himself in the event of accident taking place. In my opinion, provisions looks like a contract of insurance in the widest sense of the term, whereby one person called insurer undertakes in return for the agreed consideration on the premium to pay another person called the assured the sum of money on the happening of a specified event. In such cases the person insured cannot claim more than what has been insured. Similarly, a passenger in a train holding a valid ticket or a pass cannot claim more than what is specifically provided. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel Sri Shivaprakash that the Rules are illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, since the claimant is deprived of higher compensation by the Rules which are inflexible cannot be accepted. In my view, the object of S. 124 of the Act and the Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules are beneficial provisions for providing monetary help in the event of a passenger suffering injuries in an accident or giving compensation to the dependents of the deceased in the event of an accident taking place. Rules framed under the provisions prescribe the maximum benefit that a person would be entitled to under the relevant statutory provisions. The relief granted under these provisions is an alternative remedy apart from what he can claim under the law of torts or any other enactment in force. ( 11 ) THEN we come to the last contention urged by the learned counsel in support of the relief. The relief granted under these provisions is an alternative remedy apart from what he can claim under the law of torts or any other enactment in force. ( 11 ) THEN we come to the last contention urged by the learned counsel in support of the relief. The learned counsel says that there is hostile discrimination brought about by several legislation enacted by the Parliament such as Air Carriers Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, which provide for different standards and norms for awarding compensation for death and several types of injuries and disabilities suffered. Therefore, the rules suffers from the vice of discrimination and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. This argument is an argument of despair. Article 14 guarantees the general right of equality. Procedure prescribed under the statutory provisions must meet the challenge of Art. 14 and each law would be liable to be tested on the ambit of Art. 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statutory rule or rules affecting the civil right or results in civil consequences, would have to answer the requirement of Art. 14 of the Constitution. So the rules must be fair and just and must not be fanciful or arbitrary. Article 14 merely guarantees that persons placed in similar circumstances shall be treated alike. It does not guarantee the equal protection to the persons, who are not placed similarly and who are covered by two different enactments. It is well settled principle of law that the different enactments where the source of authority for two rules or regulations are different are not liable to attract under Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 12 ) THE respondents in their objections statement assert that the amount of compensation payable is enhanced from time to time keeping in view the rise in consumer price index. In the year 1974, the amount of compensation on account of death was only Rs. 50,000/- and which has been revised to Rs. 1 lakh in the year 1989 and further enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs in the year 1990 and at present, the amounts stands enhanced to Rs. 4 lakhs and they further assert that the rate of compensation paid by the Railway Administration cannot be compared to cases under Motor Vehicles Act or under Air Carriers Act. 1 lakh in the year 1989 and further enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs in the year 1990 and at present, the amounts stands enhanced to Rs. 4 lakhs and they further assert that the rate of compensation paid by the Railway Administration cannot be compared to cases under Motor Vehicles Act or under Air Carriers Act. In support of this assertion, they state that the amount of compensation payable by Railway Administration is not linked to earning capacity and other indices as has been gone in the case of Motor Vehicles Act and further this particular legislation cannot be compared to Air Carriers Act, since the Indian Railways have a low fare structure than that of Indian Airlines and the magnitude of traffic is much more than that of Indian Airlines. In my opinion, the first and foremost, the comparison that the petitioner is trying to project in this petition is impermissible and secondly by no stretch of imagination, petitioner can compare the persons travelling in trains with that of Air Carriers. They form totally different class altogether. As I have already observed, the Railway Administration assure its passengers irrespective of their earning capacity and other indices that they would get a prescribed amount in the event the accident takes place while travelling in their trains. The vice of discrimination pointed out by the learned counsel in my opinion has no basis whatsoever and the learned counsel cannot compare two different statutes which are made for two different situations. ( 13 ) THESE are the only contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since I have negatived all of them, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to the costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .