Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1182 (PNJ)

Rani Devi v. Union of India

2013-09-02

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is claimants' appeal challenging the award dated 11.11.2010 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the same is inadequate. As per the pleadings, one Kesar Dass died in an untoward incident which occurred on 22.7.2008, while he was travelling by train. The deceased was labourer by profession and a resident of Barwala, used to go to Hisar and Adampur for one or two weeks in search of work and after earning his livelihood, used to come back to his home at Barwala. On the fateful date i.e. on 22.7.2008, he purchased a journey ticket from Adampur to Hisar. Thereafter, he reached at Hisar by train and after purchasing another ticket from Hisar to Barwala, boarded train No. 9781-UP. When the train reached near Barwala railway station, he accidentally fell down from the train and got seriously injured. On 22.7.2008, the Pointsman gave information to the Station Master, Railway Station Barwala, who issued memo to the GRP, Hisar at 7.00 hrs. After receiving the memo, the GRP reached at the spot and got him admitted in Anant Ram Janta Hospital, but the deceased succumbed to his injuries. In his personal search, the GRP recovered two railway tickets, one from Adampur to Hisar and another from Hisar to Barwala. The railway-authority contested the claim application submitting that no incident took place as alleged and no compensation was payable. The incident is not covered under the ambit of untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act (for short the Act) as the deceased suffered injuries on account of his own negligence and criminal act by standing at the gate of the moving train or trying to get down from the moving train when it was reaching the platform of his destination station and thus, the railway administration is not liable to pay any compensation in terms of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; he sustained injuries and it was an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of railway passenger under the Rules and thus, claim application was allowed and award of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of railway passenger under the Rules and thus, claim application was allowed and award of Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till realization of the same was made in favour of the claimants and against the respondent. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants submitting that the compensation granted is inadequate. It may be noticed that appeal has been filed after expiry of 785 days of the limitation period. The only ground mentioned is that the deceased was the only bread earner of the family and after his death, condition of the whole family has deteriorated. Appellant No. 1 wife of the deceased was not feeling well and thus, delay has occurred and the appeal has been filed after arranging the money. There is nothing on record to support the averments made in the application except the affidavit of the appellant. It may further be noticed that even in the appeal it has not been mentioned how the compensation is on the lower side. According to the award of the Tribunal, payment of compensation in the case of death to railway passenger is governed by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1997. These Rules provide a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation amount on account of death of railway passenger and such compensation has already been awarded. Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellants has submitted that interest has been granted @ 9% per annum whereas it should have been @ 15% per annum. Again, it may be noticed that interest is granted by the Court at its discretion and it is not shown how 9% interest is on the lower side. Counsel for the appellants has failed to show that rate of interest was prevalent on the higher side than the rate of interest granted. In view thereof, this appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on limitation.