Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2698 (RAJ)

Union Of India v. Panna Lal

2017-12-05

INDERJEET SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 15.01.2008 filed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. II/24/2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Panna Lal filed an original application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 125 of the Railway Act wherein the claimant has contended that the claimant Panna Lal was travelling from Siras to Sureli by 196 Down Jaipur-Sawai Madhopur Passenger Train on 20.10.2004. The claimant had purchased a second class ticket no. 69804. it has also been contended that when the train was to reach at Sureli Railway Station, the claimant came at the door to get down and he slipped down due to the oily material at the footboard and due to this the claimant fell down from the train. Due to accidentally falling from running train claimant suffered injuries. It has been further alleged that, the information about this untoward incident was given by Shri Suraj Mai, brother of claimant to Station Superintendent, GRR Jaipur, on the basis of which Rojnamcha Rapat had been registered. It has also been contended that the GRP has recorded the statement of Suraj Mai, Madan Lal and Sheoji Lal on 25.10.2004. The claimant further contended that due to the injuries the applicant was in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. In view of this, claimant submitted claim application and claimed for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of occurrence of the untoward incident i.e. 20.10.2004. 3. The appellant contested the claim and filed detail reply to the application wherein the contents of the claim were denied and it has been contended that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation as no injury was caused as alleged on account of untoward incident and the claimant was not a bonafide passenger. 4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant as he was not a bonafide passenger and he himself was negligent for the injury sustained by him. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the judgment was passed by the Single member of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereas, the single member has no jurisdiction to here the claim application filed under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the judgment was passed by the Single member of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereas, the single member has no jurisdiction to here the claim application filed under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the compensation as per the schedule mentioned in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and wrongly awarded a lump sum compensation Rs. 4 lacs in favour of the claimant. No other point has been raised by the counsel for the appellant. 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondent argued that according to section 4 (4) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The single member was competent to decide the claim application. Section 4 (4) Act of 1987 reads as under:- "4 (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foreging provisions of this section, it shall be competent for the chairman or any other member authorised by the chairman in this behalf to function as a bench consisting of a single member and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the claims tribunal in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the chairman may, been general or special order, specify: Provided that if at any stage of the hearing of any such case or matter, it appears to the chairman or such member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a bench consisting of two members, the case or matter may be transferred by the chairman or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer, to such bench as the chairman may deem fit." 6. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others reported in 2008(9) Supreme Court Cases 527 , in which para 10, 11 and 12, has held as under:- "10. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others reported in 2008(9) Supreme Court Cases 527 , in which para 10, 11 and 12, has held as under:- "10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down in our opinion in either case it amounts to an "accidental falling of passengers." Hence, it is an ''untoward incident'' as defined in section 123 (c) of the railway act. 11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.", the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train while the second being that it includes a situation where a person i trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since tin provision for compensation in the railways Act is a beneficial piece d legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wide interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the above mentioned two interpretations i.e. the on which advances the object of the statute and serves it purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty vs. Ceat Ltd. (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India vs. ESI Corpn. 12. Its is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is morel consonance with the object of the act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen (AIR para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority (AIR para 11) Lalappa Lingappa vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. (AIR para 13), S.M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom District Manager (SCC Para 12)." 7. Counsel further submitted that Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. Ltd. vs. Workmen (AIR para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority (AIR para 11) Lalappa Lingappa vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. (AIR para 13), S.M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom District Manager (SCC Para 12)." 7. Counsel further submitted that Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs in favour of the claimant and the Tribunal was competent to award such a compensation in view of Section 3 (2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, accidents and un-towards incident (Compensation Rules 1990) which reads as under: "3(2) The amount of compensation payable for an injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule but which, in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal in such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work shall be [rupees four lakhs]." 8. He further submitted that the injuries sustained by the claimant was not mentioned in Part II or Part III of the schedule therefore, the learned tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant for the injuries sustained by him considering the permanent disability certificate issued by the Medical Board to the tune of 80% and looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. 9. Heard counsel for the parties. 10. The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant, that single member has no jurisdiction to decide the claim application filed by the claimant is not acceptable in view of Section 4 (4) of the Act of 1987, by which the Chairman of the Board can constitute a bench of Single member to exercise the jurisdiction of the claims tribunal. Apart from this the appellant has not raised the objection before the Tribunal regarding jurisdiction to hear the claim application. 11. The second contention raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding wrongful awarding the maximum compensation as Rs. 4 lacs in favour of the claimant is also not acceptable because according to Rule 3 (2) of the Railway accident untoward and compensation Rules 1990, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 11. The second contention raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding wrongful awarding the maximum compensation as Rs. 4 lacs in favour of the claimant is also not acceptable because according to Rule 3 (2) of the Railway accident untoward and compensation Rules 1990, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs considering the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board and also considering the nature of injuries which were not mentioned in Part II or Part III of the schedule, thus, in my considered view the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation as the claimant sustained 80% permanent disability and the Medical Board while issuing the permanent disability certificate mentioned that there was dislocation of ''C 3-4 vertebra''. 12. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant as well as stay application stands dismissed.