SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 481

2002(3) Supreme 563
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
R.P. Sethi and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
N. Parameswaran Pillai -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2661 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17443 of 2001)
Decided on 12-4-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Romy Chacko, Advocate.
For the Respondents : P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the Railways Accidents and Untoward Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (as amended in 1997) to enhanced compensation as the claim of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in Rathi Menon s case (2001) 3 SC 714.

Headnote:Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (as amended in 1997)-Rule 3(2)-Train accident which had occurred on 17.7.1997-Death of P. Suresh Kumar in an untoward incident-Railways Upheld in appeal by High Court-In a similar case compensation was granted in Apex Court at Rs. 4 lakhs-Applying Rules at the time of making the order for compensation-Whether be followed in this case also? (Yes)-(2001) 3 SCC 714 relied on-Appeal allowed accordingly.

       Held : In view of authoritative pronouncement made by this Court under similar circumstances, the present appeal has to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently we direct the Railway Administration to pay to the appellants a total sum of Rs. 4 lakhs instead of Rs. 2 lakhs as awarded within a period of three months from the date of this judgment with interest as awarded by the High Court. If the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as awarded by the Tribunal has already been paid, the appellants would be entitled to interest on the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the date of the petition till the actual payment and not on the whole amount as awarded by us. The appeal is allowed accordingly. (Para 5).

       

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-Leave granted.

2. Denying them the benefit of the amendment to the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) rules, 1990 as amended in 1997 and relying upon its earlier judgment in Union of India v. Thankaraj [1999 (3) KLT 320], the High Court refused to enhance the compensation for the death of P. Suresh Kumar in a train accident which had occurred on 17.7.1997. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in Rathi Menon v. Union of India [2001(3) SCC 714] the appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and for enhancement of the compensation.

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that while travelling from Thiruvalla to Jamnagar in Train No. 6334 on a valid ticket issued by the Southern Railways, the deceased was accidentally thrown out of the train on account of over-crowding near electric pillar at Km.134/4-5 between Chakarapalli and Penukonda Railway Stations. As a result of the fall, the deceased got injuries all over his body and ultimately died. A case a Crime No. 38 of 1997 was registered and ultimately closed finding it as a case of accidental death. The appellants thereafter prayed for the award of compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs which was disposed of by the Railway Claims Tribunal vide its judgment dated 29th October, 1998 holding the appellants entitled to the payment of Rs. 2 lakhs by way of compensation for the untoward incident along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of default. In the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court the order of the Tribunal awarding compensation was upheld and the appellants held entitled @ 12% per annum from 29-12-1997, the date of petition till 29-11-1998.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we have no doubt in our mind that the claim of the appellants is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Rathi Menon s case (supra) wherein while setting aside the similar judgment of the Kerala High Court, it was held:

"The asinine consequence of accepting the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the High Court can be demonstrated through an illustration. If a person sustained injury as described in Rule 3(2) of the Rules, in an accident in a train on 30-10-1997, and another person sustains the same kind of injury in another accident in a train the next day i.e. 1.11.1997, when both persons made separate applications before the same Claims Tribunal for compensation, the Tribunal can award Rs. 2 lakhs only in the first case and Rs. 4 lakhs in the second case. What a woeful discrimination, if not a glaringly unfair differentiation. See the interval between the two accidents of identical features. It was only a few hours, but the difference in the compensation amount is enormously high, any court should avert an interpretation which would lead to such a manifestly absurd fallout, unless the court is compelled otherwise by any mandatory provision.

Why the Central Government decided to make such a vast variation in the amount of compensation while exercising the powers conferred by Section 129 of the Act? It cannot be conceived that the Government wanted to make a discrimination between those victims who suffered an injury in an accident prior to 1.11.1997 and those who suffered an identical injury in a similar accident on or after that date. The raison d etre for making such variation is easily discernible, the Central Government wanted to update the compensation amount. Rupee value is not an unchanging unit in the monetary system. Students of economic history know that currency value remained static before the Second World War. But the post-World War II witnessed the new phenomenon of vast fluctuations in money value of currency notes in circulation in each nation. When the US Dollar registered a steep upward rise, currencies in many other countries made downward slip. What was the value of one hundred rupees twenty years ago is vastly diffe








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top