AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.K. Dhaon and Satish Chandra, JJ.—Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Sinha learned Counsel for the respondents.
The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.11.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow has filed F.A.F.O. No. 134 of 1998 u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The respondents after receiving the notice of the appeal have preferred Cross Objection, which has been registered as Cross Objection No. 391 of 2001.
The brief facts of the case are that Sri Krishna Kishore Bajpai, who was Entertainment Tax Inspector, was travelling from Lucknow to Raebareli on 29.12.1995 by Nauchandi Express against Monthly Second Class Season Ticket bearing No. 001519 which was valid from 18.12.1995 to 17.1.1996. In the claim petition it has been alleged that on account of a sudden jerk, Krishna Kishore Bajpai fell down from the compartment and died. At the time of accident which occurred on 29.12.1995, the deceased was also having Identity Card No. 250157. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow on 24.01.1997 which was contested by the appellant by filing written statement. The Railway Claims Tribunal after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record awarded the compensation of Rs. 2.0 lakh to the claimant-respondents by the impugned judgment and award dated 24.11.1997. In the Cross Objection which was filed under Order XLI Rule 22 C.P.C., the claimants have prayed for enhanced compensation of Rs. 4.0 lakh.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant-respondents were not entitled for any compensation as Krishna Kishore Bajpai fell down from the train on account of his own negligence and there was no fault on the part of the Railways and it was not an accidental fall. He further submits that the deceased was travelling negligently as a result of which the death was caused.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that Krishna Kishore Bajpai was a bona fide passenger of Nauchandi Express train on the date of the accident. He further submits that the deceased was having a valid Monthly Second Class Season Ticket and was also having the Identity Card at the time of the accident. He further submits that between Lucknow and Block Hut ''A'' in between 1067 KM and 1068 KM the train stopped and restarted with a sudden jerk without any whistle or indication on account of which the accident took place. He further submits that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 4.0 lakh as the Rules were amended with effect from 01.11.1997 and at the time when the judgment was delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal on 24.11.1997, the amended provisions of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules were applicable. He has relied upon the decisions of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, and N. Parameswaran Pillai and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another,
In reply to the submissions made by the leaned Counsel for the respondents, Sri Anil Srivastava submits that the claimant-respondents are not entitled for the enhanced compensation as the accident took place on 29.12.1995. He further submits that whatever amount was claimed by the claimant-respondents in the claim petition was awarded by the Tribunal and the Cross Objection preferred by the respondents deserves to be dismissed.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the appeal and Cross Objection, we dispose of both the Appeal and Cross Objection by a common judgment and order.
It is admitted case of the parties that on 29.12.1995 the deceased Krishna Kishore Bajpai was travelling by Nauchandi Express from Lucknow to Raebareli against Monthly Second Class Season Ticket bearing No. 001519 which was valid for the period 18.12.1995 to 17.01.1996. At the time of the accident, the deceased was serving as Entertainment Tax Inspector who was posted at Raebareli and was residing at Lucknow. On the fateful day, i.e. 29.12.1995, he was seated near the gate of the second class compartment in which he was travelling. The train had a halt at Block Hut ''A'' in between 1067 KM and 1068 KM and as the train restarted with a sudden jerk it resulted in the fall of the deceased who was crushed under the wheels of the train. In the claim petition which was filed in the year 1997, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was claimed which was applicable at the relevant time. The Tribunal after considering the material on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondents. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased Krishna Kishore Bajpai was negligent and fell down on his own cannot be accepted as between Lucknow and Block Hut ''A'' in between 1067 KM and 1068 KM the train stopped and restarted with a sudden jerk without any whistle or indication. The Tribunal has rightly held that there was no negligence on the part of late Krishna Kishore Bajpai.
In the Cross Objection preferred by the respondents, compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakh has been prayed for. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was amended with effect from 01.11.1997 and it provides Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation in the case of death. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India (Supra) has held in paragraph 23 as under:
The collection of the words "as may be prescribed" in Section 124A of the Act is to be understood as to mean "as may be prescribed from time to time." The relevance of the date of untoward incident is that the right to claim compensation from the Railway Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. The statute did not fix the amount of compensation, but left it to be determined by the Central Government from time to time by means of rules. This delegation to the Central Government indicates that it was difficult for the Parliament to fix the amount because compensation amount is a varying phenomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous position to ascertain what would be the just and reasonable compensation in respect of a myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into account very many factors. What the legislature wanted was that the victim of the accident must be paid compensation and the amount must represent a reality which means the amount should be a fair and reasonable compensation. Government have the better wherewithals to ascertain and fix such amount. It is for the said reason that the Parliament left it to the Government to discharge that function. Sections 124 and 124A of the Act speaks the same language that "the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation." As pointed bove, it is the liability of the Railway Administration to "pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed." Hence the time of ordering payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of the compensation which is prescribed by the rules to be disbursed to the claimant.
In N. Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India (Supra) Hon''ble the Supreme Court has held that the compensation amount should be awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of the Rules which were applicable at the time of the judgment.
The right to claim compensation as well as liability of the Railway Administration are both reposed in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, amended from time to time is a beneficial legislation and the determination of the amount of compensation should be on the basis of the Rules, which were applicable at the time of determination. In the instant case the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal was passed on 24.11.1997 and at that time the amended Rules were already there as they were enforced with effect from 1.11.1997. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 4.0 lakh.
The First Appeal From Order is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. The Cross Objection preferred by the claimant-respondents deserves to be allowed. We, therefore, allow the Cross Objection preferred by the respondents and award the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The judgment and award dated 24.11.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Case No. OA 9700006 is modified to the extent that the claimant-respondents shall be entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the judgment and award dated 24.11.1997. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining amount before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow within six weeks from today which shall be released in favour of the claimant-respondents. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.