Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 307 (JHR)

Radha Devi v. Union of India

2018-02-05

RAJESH KUMAR

body2018
ORDER : Heard Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Railway. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the Award dated 02.08.2013 passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. TAW/RNC/2002/2017 challenging the quantum of compensation granted to the appellant wherein the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant on the death of her husband in an untoward incident as prescribed under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act instead of Rs.4,00,000/- as specified in Para-I of Rule 3 under the Schedule "Death" under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Further, learned Tribunal has not granted interest to the appellant on the said amount from the date of filling of the application i.e. 23.12.2002 till the actual deposit @ 12% per annum. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that unfortunate accident was happened on 12.12.2001 near West Cabin of Koderma Railway Station in which husband of the claimant namely Yogendra Pd. died. Thereafter, claimant/appellant herein made an application on 23.12.2002 for compensation under Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. After due consideration, learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench has passed an Award in favour of the claimant holding that claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has granted only Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation without assigning any reason instead of Rs. 4,00,000/- as specified in Schedule of Part-I of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. 'Schedule' of Part-I of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 is quoted hereinunder : "3. Amount of compensation.-(1) The amount of compensation payable in respect of death for injuries, shall be as specified in the Schedule SCHEDULE (See Rule 3) COMPENSATION PAYABLE FOR DEATH AND INJURIES PART I Amount of compensation (in Rs.) For DEATH 4,00,000/-" 5. From perusal of the above Rule, it is evident that learned Tribunal has no discretion to reduce the compensation and the same is payable as per the Schedule. As per the Schedule, compensation amount is Rs. 4,00,000/-. 6. The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant herein on 20.11.2013. From perusal of the above Rule, it is evident that learned Tribunal has no discretion to reduce the compensation and the same is payable as per the Schedule. As per the Schedule, compensation amount is Rs. 4,00,000/-. 6. The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant herein on 20.11.2013. There was only one day delay in preferring the appeal, which was condoned on 01.09.2017 by a Bench of this Court. 7. It is strange that application has been made before the learned Tribunal on 23.12.2002 and final Award has been passed on 02.08.2013. i.e. after lapse of more than 11 years. The way claimant being allowed to suffer by the learned Tribunal is not proper in the eye of law. 8. At this stage. learned counsel for the appellant has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1055 of 2018 claiming that in view of revision in Schedule, claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. It is submitted that as per notification dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure-1 to the I.A. No. 1055 of 2018), compensation amount has been enhanced to Rs. 8,00,000/- with effect from 01.01.2017. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714 . It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant is entitled to compensation in terms of Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules. 2016 whereby the statutory amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/-. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has objected the prayer and submitted that the claim petition was filed after certain delay. However, he has not disputed regarding the entitlement of the claimant. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and also considering the settled principle of the Apex Court, this Court finds that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of entitlement of the claimant is not in dispute. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal has no power to deviate from the Schedule as mentioned in Part I of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was prevalent at that point of time. So far as the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal has no power to deviate from the Schedule as mentioned in Part I of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was prevalent at that point of time. So far as the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- in terms of the amended provision of the Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 is concerned, it appears that in the case of Rathi Menon (supra), the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the circumstances and the reasons for payment of enhanced compensation in terms of the amended Rule. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 12. Paras 29 and 30 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon (supra) is quoted here-in-below for better appreciation :- "29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident. 30. From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the Rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation. "13. Accordingly, Award dated 02.08.2013 passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. TAW/RNC/2002/2017 is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/- instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal stands allowed. 8,00,000/- instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal stands allowed. I.A. No. 1055 of 2018 also stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.