High Court Of Calcutta
Salil Kumar Datta, Ganendra Narayan Ray
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Appellant
Versus
AD-HOC CLAIMS COMMISSIONER - Respondent
C. R. Nos. 1305-9, 693-4 of 1976, 1363-64 of 1976, 1053-65 of 1975, 1059 of 1976 and 431 of 1976
Decided On : 02/25/1977
RAILWAY ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION - RULES - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 82-A TO 82-J OF THE INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT, 1890 - RAILWAY ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION) RULES, 1950 - AMENDMENT RULES, 1974.
Fact of the Case:
A major train accident occurred on January 29, 1975, at Ultadanga Road Station by collision between two passenger trains. The accident was attended with loss of human life and grievous injury to passengers as also loss of property. The Railway Administration appointed an Ad-hoc Claims Commissioner (hereinafter referred as Claims Commissioner) for determination of claims for compensation made by the passengers for personal injury as also for loss of property on account of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The Claims Commissioner determined the compensation payable by the Railway Administration to the passengers before him on account of personal injury suffered by them as also for loss of goods. The Railway Administration was dissatisfied with the determination of such compensation which according to the Railway was not authorised by the provisions of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and the Rules made thereunder.
Issues: 1. Whether the Claims Commissioner was right in determining compensation as being payable under and on the basis of Rule 6 (2) in cases other than death and complete incapacity to do any work? 2. Whether the compensation for pain and suffering resulting from all injuries of the accident is Rs. 10,000? 3. Whether the word 'any' before injury in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 should be read as 'all'?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 6 (2) applies when the amount of injury is not specified in Part II of the Schedule but at the same time deprives a person of all capacity to do any work. This sub-rule has no application where there is permanent partial disablement caused by the injury of the accident, as such injury does not deprive a person of all capacity to do any work. 2. The compensation for pain and suffering resulting from all non-schedule injuries is not Rs. 10,000. The compensation will be such as the Claims Commissioner may, in all circumstances of the case determine reasonable subject to the condition that such compensation in no case shall exceed Rs. 10,000. 3. The word 'any' before injury in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 should not be read as 'all'.
Final Decision: The Court held that the Claims Commissioner was wrong in determining compensation as being payable under and on the basis of Rule 6 (2) in cases other than death and complete incapacity to do any work. The Court also held that the compensation for pain and suffering resulting from all injuries of the accident is not Rs. 10,000. The Court further held that the word 'any' before injury in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 should not be read as 'all'. The Court discharged the Rules in Civil Revision Nos. 1305 of 1976, 1306 of 1976, 1308 of 1976, 1309 of 1976, 693 of 1976, 694 of 1976, 1363 of 1976, 1364 of 1976, 1053 of 1976, 1054 of 1976, 1059 of 1976, 1060 of 1976 and 421 of 1976. The Court set aside the determination made by the Commissioner under Rule 6 (2) in Civil Revision Nos. 1305 of 1976, 1306 of 1976, 1308 of 1976, 1309 of 1976, 1363 of 1976, 1364 of 1976, 1053 of 1976, 1054 of 1976, 1056 of 1976, 1059 of 1976 and 1060 of 1976. The Court granted stay of operation of the order in respect of the other cases for a period of four weeks.
( 1 ) A major train accident occurred on January 29, 1975 at Ultadanga Road Station by collision between two passenger trains. The accident was attended with loss of human life and grievous injury to passengers as also loss of property. The Railway Administration appointed an Ad-hoc Claims Commissioner (hereinafter referred as Claims Commissioner) for determination of claims for compensation made by the passengers for personal injury as also for loss of property on account of the accident. The Claims Commissioner held sittings when evidence was adduced by the victims in support of their respective cases in respect of the compensation payable by the Railway for injury to person and loss of property caused by the accident. The Claims Commissioner determined the compensation payable by the Railway Administration to the passengers before him on account of personal injury suffered by them as also for loss of goods. The Railway Administration was dissatisfied with the determination of such compensation which according to the Railway was not authorised by the provisions of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and the Rules made thereunder. Accordingly the Union of India moved this Court by applications under Article 227 of the Constitution against the several orders for compensation and the Rules before us were issued on those applications for appropriate orders and directions. The Rules involving common questions of law and similar questions of facts have been heard before us together and will be governed by this judgment.
( 2 ) THE liability of railway administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers is provided in Sections 82a to 82j of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, Section 82-A provides in Sub-section (1) that the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation for death and for personal injury and loss of accompanying goods owned by the passenger sustained as a result of such accident. Sub-section (2) provides that the liability of the Railway administration shall in no case exceed rupees fifty thousand in respect of any one person. Section 82-B provides for appointment of a Claims Commissioner for local area. The applications for compensation have been provided in Section 82-C including claims for interim relief. Section 82-D provided for procedure and powers of the Claims Commissioner who shall have the powers of the Civil Court for enforcing attendance of witnesses and production of documents and material objects and also power to appoint persons possessing special knowledge to assist him in holding the inquiry. Section 82-E provides for interim compensation as may be deemed reasonable by the Claims Commissioner. The Claims Commissioner under Sub-section (1) to Section 82-F is to determine the liability of the railways to pay compensation under Section 82-A and the amount and person to whom such compensation would be payable. Subsection (2) provides for appeal to the High Court by the persons aggrieved against the decision of the Claims Commissioner but High Court shall not be authorised to grant compensation in excess of limit specified in Section 82-A.
( 3 ) SECTION 82-G lays down the procedure for recovering and payment of compensation. Section 82-H provides that the right of any person to claim compensation under Section 82-A shall not affect his right to compensation under any other law for the time being in force but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident. Section 82-H provides for interim relief by railway administration while Section 82-I is a bar to legal proceedings against any person for anything done in good faith under the foregoing sections. Section 82-J provides for power to make rules by the Central Government to carry out the objects of Sections 82-A to 82-H inclusive.
( 4 ) THE Central Government in pursuance thereof framed Rules called Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1950. We are concerned in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.