The amount of compensation payable in case of death of a passenger by accidentally falling from a passenger train is the fixed amount prescribed in the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, and not limited to the actual loss suffered by the claimants-appellants.

PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, kolkata Bench, thereby awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000 to the claimants-appellants.

( 2 ) THE claimants-appellants are the widow and the children of the deceased bijay Das who was a rickshaw puller and on the date of the accident he was aged about 24 years. The said deceased was travelling from Belgharia to Sealdah by local train. He accidentally fell down from the running train in between Belgharia and dumdum Railway Stations due to heavy rush and sudden jerk and died on the spot.

( 3 ) AT the hearing of the aforesaid claim case, respondent Railways did not dispute the fact that the death was occasioned due to the accidental falling of the deceased from a train carrying passengers.

( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal determined the compensation payable to the claimants-appellants at Rs. 2,00,000 by holding on the basis of the evidence of the claimants-appellants that the deceased had an earning at the rate of Rs. 3,000 p. m. as a rickshaw puller at the relevant time.

( 5 ) IN this appeal while the claimants-appellants upon reference to Part 1 of the schedule appended to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, has contended that as per the amended Schedule the amount of compensation ought to have been determined at rs. 4,00,000 for the death of the victim because of his accidental falling from a train carrying passengers, the respondent railways has argued that in view of section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, read with rule 4 of the aforesaid Compensation rules, 1990, the amount of compensation has been rightly determined by the Claims tribunal. The specific contention raised by respondent Railways is that as per the provisions of section 124-A the railway administration is liable to pay compensation to that extent only for which the loss occasioned by the death of a passenger as a result of such untoward incident. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Compensation Rules, 1990 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in rule 3 the total compensation payable under that rule shall in no case exceed Rs. 4,00,000 in respect of any one person. According to the railway administration as per the Schedule prepared under rule 3, the maximum amount in death case has been prescribed by said Rules, 1990 as rs. 4,00,000. Therefore in view of section 124-A as aforesaid the Claims Tribunal is to determine the extent of actual loss occasioned by the death of a passenger and to compensate the claimants accordingly. The claimants-appellants in their evidence have stated that the deceased victim had an earning of Rs. 3,000 p. m. , at the time of accident. The compensation has, therefore, been rightly awarded by deducting 1/3rd amount from the aforesaid monthly income towards his personal expenses and thereby determining the actual loss suffered by the dependants, claimants-appellants herein at a lump sum of Rs. 2,00,000.

( 6 ) SUBSTANTIALLY, the question has been posed in this appeal is whether in the case of death of a passenger by accidentally falling from a passenger train there would be a fixed amount of compensation of rs. 4,00,000 as per the said Schedule or to the extent of actual loss suffered by the claimants-appellants as being the dependants of the said deceased.

( 7 ) THE above question has been set a rest by Supreme Court decision reportec in Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001 acj 721 (SC ). In the said decision the apex Court has interpreted and explained the scope and purport of the amendment to these Rules with effect from 1. 11. 1997 and their Lordships have held that the claimed amount should be determined on the basis of the rate prescribed by the Rules prevailing on the date of making the order for payment. Following the said decision a division Bench of this court in the decision reported in Sudhira Mondal v. Union of india, 2005 ACJ 1457 (Calcutta), has further held tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document