Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 731 (JHR)

Shakuntala Devi v. Union of India

2020-07-07

KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal has preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the award passed by learned Member/Technical, Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/2007/0010, whereby the claimant/appellant has been awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- without any interest and if the amount is not released by the respondent within two months from the date of pronouncement of the decree, it will carry an interest of 9% from the date of the judgment, till actual payment made. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the learned Tribunal held Kishori Yadav (deceased) to be a bona fide passenger and the incident in which he had lost his life, as an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (C)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989. But while granting compensation the learned Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi has committed error as at that relevant time, the compensation for death of a person was Rs.4 Lacs in view of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule, 1990, which was applicable on the date of alleged incident dated 03.04.2006. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the incident took place on 03.04.2006, the claim application was filed on 2.02.2007 and the final judgment /decree was passed on 02.08.2013. The learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.2 Lacs instead of Rs.4 Lacs and further committed error by not awarding interest. This issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714 at paras 29 and 30 which is reproduced herein-below :- “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. 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”. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of her submission, has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372 at paras 36 to 40, which are profitably quoted hereunder:- “36. In the instant case, the claim for compensation accrued on 13-11-1998 when Kunhi Moosa, the husband of Appellant 1, died on account of being thrown out of the moving train. The claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (OA No. 68 of 1999) was filed immediately thereafter in 1999. There was no delay on the part of the appellant claimants in making the claim, which was ultimately granted for the maximum amount of Rs. 4 lakhs on 26-3-2007. 37. Even if the appellants may not be entitled to claim interest from the date of the accident, we are of the view that the claim to interest on the awarded sum has to be allowed from the date of the application till the date of recovery, since the appellant cannot be faulted for the delay of approximately eight years in the making of the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Had the Tribunal not delayed the matter for so long, the appellants would have been entitled to the beneficial interest of the amount awarded from a much earlier date and we see no reason why they should be deprived of such benefit. 38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. 38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims. 39. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the High Court dated 24-5-2007 affirming the order of the trial court and direct that the awarded sum will carry interest @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date of the application till the date of the award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment of the same. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 40. The respondents shall pay the costs of this proceeding to the appellants assessed at Rs.25,000”. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even if the appellant may not be entitled to have interest from the date of incident then also interest shall be awarded from the date of application till the date of recovery. The appellant may not be allowed to suffer for the delay of approximately 7 1/2 years in making of the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. If the learned Tribunal would not have delayed the matter for so long, the appellant would have been entitled for beneficial interest on the awarded amount much earlier. The appellant may not be allowed to suffer for the delay of approximately 7 1/2 years in making of the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. If the learned Tribunal would not have delayed the matter for so long, the appellant would have been entitled for beneficial interest on the awarded amount much earlier. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that at the time of incident the compensation for death was of Rs.4 Lacs out of which Rs.2 Lacs has been awarded, as such, the appellant is entitled for interest upon Rs.2 Lacs from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 02.02.2007 till the date of actual payment, which has been made on 04.10.2013, but the learned Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation from the fixed amount of Rs.4 Lacs at the relevant time in view of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules 1990, as such, the appellant is entitled for rest amount of Rs.2 Lacs along with the interest from the date of filing of the application i.e. 02.02.2007 till the present date i.e. actual date of payment. As such, this Court may enhance the same. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railways, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has opposed the same and in support of his submission placed reliance in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410 in paras 11 and 12 which are quoted hereunder:- “11. This issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi (supra) is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability has arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the measure of compensation. Therefore, if the liability has arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration. 12. Consequently, we must hold that the High Court was in error in awarding interest on the sum of Rs. 8 lakhs in the instant case. Where the accident had occurred before the amendment, it ought to have considered the matter in the light of the principle laid down in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 ]. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeals. However, the respondent, in any case, would not be affected in any manner and will be entitled to the sum awarded by the High Court. 5. As such, the appellant is not entitled for any interest. 6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment relied by both the parties. It appears that the issue which has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Yadav (Supra) is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Radha Yadav (Supra) is a case where situation was different, as the accident took place on 02.10.2003, but the award was passed on 27.09.2007 without paying any compensation to the applicant as the learned Tribunal has found that the deceased was victim of his own act, as such, no compensation was payable. Radha Yadav (Supra) is a case where situation was different, as the accident took place on 02.10.2003, but the award was passed on 27.09.2007 without paying any compensation to the applicant as the learned Tribunal has found that the deceased was victim of his own act, as such, no compensation was payable. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the same and also considered the several judgments including the provisions of Section 124A of the Act on principle of strict liability and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of workman compensation passed by four judges Bench in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata & Another, reported in (1976) (1) SCC 289, where it has been held that compensation as applicable on the date of accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of the beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the learned Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Yadav (Supra) where it has been held that in the case of death in an accident which occurred before the amendment i.e. 01.01.2017 (the basic figure would be four lacs). If after applying the reasonable rate of interest the final figure comes to less than Rs.8,00,000/- because of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. However, if the amount of original compensation with rate of interest would exceed to a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to uphold the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. 7. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds that similar principle cannot be applied in the present case as because Rs.2 Lacs has already been paid to the claimants, as such, this Court directs the respondent-Railways to pay interest on the paid amount of Rs.2 Lacs from the date of filing of application i.e. 02.02.2007 till the date of actual payment i.e. 4.10.2013 @ 9% simple interest along with balance of Rs.2 Lacs with interest @ 9% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 02.02.2007 till the date of actual payment. This case cannot be taken into the category of what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Yadav (supra) as part of the payment has already been paid before the new amendment came and made effective from 01.01.2017. 8. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. 9. The appellant is entitled for simple interest @ 9% for Rs.2 Lacs already paid to her on 04.10.2013 i.e. for a period from 02.02.2007 till 04.10.2013 and Rs.2 Lacs along with simple interest @ 9% from 02.02.2007 till the date of actual payment. 10. Respondent-Railways is directed to indemnify the aforesaid amount within a period 90 days.