Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 394 (GUJ)

Union of India v. Ramiben Kacharabhai Parmar

2013-07-10

R.D.KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT : R.D. KOTHARI, J. 1. Mr. Mahesh Bariya, learned advocate for the appellant has made the following two submissions: (1) that, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to award compensation on account of injuries sustained by a person in railway accident. It is only the Railway Claims Tribunal, who has jurisdiction to award compensation. (2) It was contended that the co-passengers, who were travelling with the injured passenger are not examined and there was no sufficient material before the Tribunal to record finding on the issue of negligence and to award compensation. 2. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 11.11.1986. Injured Ramiben was travelling from Kalol to Ahmedabad in the Train known as "31 UP Train." As the train approached near Ahmedabad, speed of the train was considerably reduced on account of railway signal at Asarwa. The carriage in which Ramiben was travelling was full of passengers (over crowded). As the train was slowed down, passengers standing nearby the door rushed rushed towards the door and in the process, Ramiben, who was standing nearby the door, fell down from the train and sustained serious injuries. After she was fell down, one of the passengers had pulled chain of the train. Ramiben was shifted to Civil Hospital where she lodged complaint against Railway authorities. She had sustained amputation injuries. Her leg was required to be amputated. 3. Later on Ramiben instituted Civil Suit No. 6569/1988 against railway claiming compensation of Rs. 1 Lac before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The learned Judge, City Civil Court No. 13 was pleased to decree the Suit partly by judgment and order dated 24.4.2001. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the railway authorities have preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Bariya for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. D.K. Nakrani for the respondent claimant. 5. During the course of arguments, learned advocate Mr. Bariya has drawn attention of the Court to the provisions of section 124 (Extent of liability), section 124A (Compensation on account of untoward incident) and section 125 (Application for compensation). Relying upon these provisions, it was submitted by Mr. Bariya that only the Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation and jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by law. 6. In reply, learned advocate Mr. Relying upon these provisions, it was submitted by Mr. Bariya that only the Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation and jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by law. 6. In reply, learned advocate Mr. Nakrani for the respondent claimant has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and submitted that the case of the claimant would fall under Section 13(1)(ii) of the Act. He has also drawn attention of the Court to section 82A of the Railways Act, 1989. 7. It is not necessary to examine the objection as to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court in detail, raised by the learned advocate for the appellants. In the present case, accident occurred on 11.11.1986 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 came into force with effect from 5.10.1989. The plaintiff had instituted the Suit on 3.11.1987. Thus, on the date of accident as well as on the date of institution of the suit for compensation by the claimant, the Railway Claims Tribunal was not in existence/had not come into force. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Bariya has drawn attention of the Court to Section 13(1A) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and submitted that retrospective effect is given to the provisions and accidents covered under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 are to be tried only by the Railway Claims Tribunal. This submission is not possible to accept. Section 13(1A) of the Act does not appear to be retrospective in operation. In fact, section 13(1A) came into force much later i.e. w.e.f. 1.8.1994. In view of the above legal situation, objection raised as to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court cannot be accepted. Besides, it appears from the record that earlier the suit was transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal had returned the same to the City Civil Court holding that it was a case for compensation under the tort and, therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction. The appellants do not appear to have challenged the said order of the Tribunal. That apart, the statutory provision as to the jurisdiction as referred to above is clear. The City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and award compensation in the present case. 9. On behalf of the appellants, Ramiben has deposed before the Court and she has been cross-examined by the appellants. That apart, the statutory provision as to the jurisdiction as referred to above is clear. The City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and award compensation in the present case. 9. On behalf of the appellants, Ramiben has deposed before the Court and she has been cross-examined by the appellants. Further, the appellants have examined two doctors, namely, Dr. Hemangini Desai, R.M.O., Civil Hospital and Dr. Rajesh Ambalal, who had treated her. The claimant has also produced relevant documentary evidence in support of her assertion. Considering the material on record, i.e. evidence of the claimant and other documents produced on record, the learned trial Court was pleased to believe the negligence on the part of the railway authorities. The submission of the learned advocate Mr. Bariya that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in accepting assertion of the claimant, as according to the learned advocate, the claimant ought to have examined other co-passengers, is devoid of merits. It was submitted that the daughter-in-law and granddaughter were also travelling with the claimant and the claimant ought to have examined them. This submission is also not possible to accept. On occurrence of the accident, the claimant was shifted to Civil Hospital on the same day and she lodged complaint on the same day. It is on the record that one of the passengers had pulled the chain. If in the circumstances of the case assertion of the claimant as to the occurrence of the accident requires any support from any other evidence and the claimant fails to bring forward such evidence, then the other side may have legitimate ground to complain about this deficiency. No such case herein. In fact, the appellants did not care to examine any witness. The learned trial Court has not committed any error in accepting the assertion of the claimant as to the negligence of the railway authorities. 10. As to the compensation, the learned trial Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation. The claimant Ramiben was a labourer. She claims that her monthly income was Rs. 900/-. The issue of compensation is also considered in detail by the learned trial Court. The assertion of the claimant as to the monthly income is just and reasonable. As per the say of the claimant, she was aged 52 years at the time of accident. The claimant Ramiben was a labourer. She claims that her monthly income was Rs. 900/-. The issue of compensation is also considered in detail by the learned trial Court. The assertion of the claimant as to the monthly income is just and reasonable. As per the say of the claimant, she was aged 52 years at the time of accident. This assertion is also properly examined by the learned trial Court and has believed that the claimant was aged 52 years. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has found that multiplier of 10 would be just and reasonable. The trial Court has awarded Rs. 54,000/- towards future loss of income Rs. 12,000/- for medical expenses, special diets etc. Rs. 5000/- towards attendance charges and Rs. 10,000/for pain, shock and suffering. In all, the trial Court awarded Rs. 86,400/- as compensation. It is not in dispute that the claimant received amputation injuries, one of her leg was amputated. Awarding of Rs. 86,400/- as compensation can be said to be just, proper and reasonable. 12. It was pointed out at the time of hearing that the appellant - railway authorities have deposited Rs. 50,000/- at the time of hearing of the application for interim relief. The claimant was allowed to withdraw part of the deposited amount. It is hereby directed that the appellants shall deposit the remaining amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court with interest within two months, but not later than 30.9.2013. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Bariya for the appellants cannot be accepted. Hence, the appeal must fail and stands dismissed. Civil Application No. 2643/2003 In view of dismissal of the main First Appeal, this Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.