IMPORTANT POINT
Court should see whether after applying reasonable interest the amount would exceed 800000, If so then compensation would be that amount.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

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, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 507 =2018 AIR 2362 = 2018 SCR 417 = 2018 (7) SCALE 274 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:-

“18. ……. We are of the view that law in the present context should be taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just and fair from time to time. In this context, rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Once concept of interest has been introduced, principles of Workmen Compensation Act can certainly be applied and judgment of 4-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo, (1976) 1 SCC 289 will fully apply. Wherever it is found that the revised amount of applicable compensation as on the date of award of the Tribunal is less than the prescribed amount of compensation as on the date of accident with interest, higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded on the principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislation is certainly a piece of beneficent legislation.

19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. See