Union of India v. Radha Yadav

1. Leave granted.

2. While travelling from Burdwan Railway Station to Howrah Railway Station on 02.10.2003 in a local train one Dasarath Yadav had peeped his head out of the compartment door and his head collided with a post by the side of the railway track resulting in an accident where he lost his life. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata by its judgment and order dated 27.09.2007 found that the deceased was a bona fide railway passenger and that the incident was an “untoward incident” in terms of the provisions of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Tribunal, however, found that the deceased was victim of his own act and as such no compensation was payable.

3. The dismissal of the Claim Petition was challenged by the respondent i.e. widow of the deceased by filing FMA No.858 of 2012 in the High Court at Calcutta.

4. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules) provide for a Schedule prescribing the amount of compensation payable in respect of death and injuries. During the pendency of the matter by way of amendment, the amount of compensation which was earlier at the level of Rs.4,00,000/- in case of death was raised to Rs.8,00,000/-.

5. It was found by the High Court that in terms of Section 124-A of the Act the ‘Principle of Strict Liability’ would arise and as such the Tribunal was not right in denying compensation to the respondent. While allowing the appeal, the High Court held the respondent to be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The judgment of the High Court in the present case was delivered on 03.03.2017. The challenge raised by way of review petition was also rejected on 30.11.2017.

6. On 09.05.2018 in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi[1] this Court considered the following questions: i) Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/incident or on the date of order awarding compensation; ii) Whether principle of strict liability applies; iii) Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough to maintain a claim; iv) Rate of interest. As regards the first question this Court ruled as under:-

7. This Special Leave Petition was filed in the month of September, 2018 i.e. after the aforesaid decision of this Court in Rina Devi[1].

8. When the matter was taken up, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that grant of interest on the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was not consistent with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rina Devi[1]. It was contended that despite said decision, in number of cases interest was being awarded on the revised amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court did not find it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent but appointed Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Senior Advocate as amicus curiae to assist the Court. It was made clear that the respondent shall be entitled to the benefit ordered by the High Court irrespective of the decision as regards question of law raised in the matter.

9. We heard Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned amicus curiae.

10. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Devi[1] 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 had 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 Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be 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.

11. 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 Rani Devi[1]. 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.

12. We must also note an important aspect which was brought to our notice by the learned amicus curiae. He placed summary of four Reports regarding safety in Indian Railways. Those Reports are:-