Back
2010 (3) GCD 1931 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod
Union of India Through General Manager
Versus
Ashokbhai Govindbhai Patni
First Appeal No. 2760 of 2009—Decided on 21/07/20091
Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2), 124(A) — Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 — Part III Clause 24 — Untoward Incident — Serious injuries caused — Claim for compensation with interest awarded by Claims Tribunal — Challenge on ground that accident is not covered by untoward incident is not sustainable — Evidence adduced by claimant clearly proves and Claims Tribunal has rightly held that claimant had positively proved that untoward incident had happened resulting in injuries to him — There is also no rebuttal evidence by appellants before Tribunal — Therefore, award of compensation by Claim Tribunal is well founded and calls for no interference by Court — Court also considered the provision of the Civil Code and interest Act and held that Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding interest on the amount of compensation from date of application.
Held :
The said affidavit of claimant remained uncontroverted so far holding of ticket is concerned by claimant. Exh.A-3 is Panchnama of place of incident. In Panchnama, it is mentioned that dried blood stains was found on the border of Platform No. 7. This Panchnama is prepared on basis of alleged incident. Exh.A-4 is Panchnama of physical condition of claimant in which it is shown that there was bandage on right foot of claimant. Exh.A-5 is physical handicapped certificate in which mid foot amputation of right leg is shown. Exh.A-6 is photograph of claimant showing amputation of foot of right leg. Exh.A-7 is telephone vardi. The said Vardi speaks about happening of incident of claimant on 11.6.2000 at 15.00 hRs. while boarding Memu train by falling down. The aforesaid evidence is adduced by claimant but, no evidence has been adduced by respondent - present appellant before claims Tribunal. Therefore, on basis of aforesaid evidence, claims Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that respondent could not succeed to prove that claimant was not a bona fide passenger in said Memu train and accident is considered to be untoward incident covered under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act, therefore, Issue No. 1 has been decided in affirmative. [Para 6]
As there is no prohibition either in the Railways Act or Railways Claims Tribunal Act to award interest on the compensation for the injury or death in an untoward incident, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding interest in view of the above mentioned provisions of the Interest Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The question formulated at paragraph-3(b) is answered accordingly. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubneshwar Bench, Bhubneshwar.” [Para 9 (21)]
Law Laid Down :
Normally when a money decree is passed it is most essential that interest be granted for the period during which the money was due.
H.K. Rathod, J.— Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.N. Shastri for appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh B. Shah for respondent.
2. In this appeal, the appellant - Union of India has challenged award passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench in case No. OA 0100024, dated 31.8.2007. The Railway Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- with 6% running interest from date of petition till realization of awarded compensation.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shastri has raised contention before this Court that claimant has not made out any case of amount under provisions of Railways Act, 1989. He also raised contention before this Court that incident is not covered as an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,1989. Learned Advocate Mr. Shastri also submitted it was a negligence on part of claimant and due to that, accident is occurred. For that, railway authority is not responsible at all. He also raised one contention before this Court that in respect to interest, one FA No. 4958 of 2007 is admitted by this Court on 25.10.2007 where submission made by learned advocate Mr. B.I. Mehta that Tribunal has committed error in awarding interest from date of application in view of judgment delivered in FA No. 24 of 2002 with CA No. 70 of 2002 in case between Union of India vs. Babulal Gangavat. Therefore, this appeal be also admitted.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly examined matter on basis of evidence on record. The appellant has not led any oral evidence before claims Tribunal and evidence of claimant remained unchallenged and no documentary evidence was produced on record by appellant. Therefore, he submitted that claims Tribunal has decided matter on basis of evidence on record and because of injury, claimant’s right foot was crushed and said foot was amputated from mid of the foot including toes. This has been proved by oral evidence supported by physical handicapped certificates as well as photographs of claimant. Therefore, he submitted that claims Tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. He also submitted that question of interest has been rightly decided by claims Tribunal and appellant has not raised any contention before claims Tribunal in respect to interest that railway claims Tribunal is not competent or having jurisdiction to award interest in favour of claimant. Therefore, claims Tribunal has decided matter according to law and no interference is required by this Court.
5. I have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates and also perused award passed by claims Tribunal. The accident occurred on 11.6.2000. The claimant purchased railway tickets bearing No. 34039650 from Ahmedabad railway station for Palanpur. The application was filed under Section 124(A) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. As soon as claimant tried to get into Memu train, due to jerk of train and push of other passengers, he fell down between train and platform and sustained serious injury on his foot and various part of his body. According to claimant, there was crush injury on both feet and other part of body and, therefore, total claim of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs was made from railway authority. The railway authority has filed reply against claim petition filed by claimant. Merely raising a contention that accident is not covered by untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,1989. Thereafter, issues have been framed by claims Tribunal and matter has been considered on basis of evidence by claims Tribunal. The claimant filed claim petition for injury to his right foot as well as various parts of body on account of falling down from train. The claimant also filed affidavit in evidence along with certain documents including ticket, police papers, panchnama, photographs etc. The respondent means present appellant has not adduced any evidence to support resistance in form of written statement. Thereafter, claim
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
