Back
2003(2) JLJ 203
Bhawani Singh, C.J., and S.L. Jain, J.
Union of India v. Satish Patidar and another
Misc. Appeal No. 1146 of 1997; against the award of Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, passed in Original Application No. 628 of
1996; Decided on 27.1.2003.
The final journey for the deceased began on July 14, 1992, when he boarded 130 Up train at Thandala for Meghnagar. He fell from the train and the train ran over him. The respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim for compensation before the Tribunal after about 4 years of the incident, on 5.8.1996. [Para 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the finding of the Tribunal was to the effect that it had jurisdiction to decide the application. The Tribunal also held that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger consequently it awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount. The appellant-Railways is seriously aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and has filed this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the same. [Para 4
Held: On reading sections 123 (c) and 124A of the Act of 1989 we find that they are prospective in nature and do not cover past events. Past events remained untouched by the sweep of the aforesaid amendment which has come into force subsequent to the date of accident. As the accident in the case occurred prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act the same cannot be covered by amendment. [Para 17
The Amending Act creates a new obligation on the Railways. It cannot be given a retrospective effect unless such a construction follows from express words or by necessary implication. [Para 18
(2) Railways Act, 1989 -- Ss. 123(c) (2) and 124A (as inserted on 1.8.1994) -- accidental falling of any passenger from passenger train -- is untoward incident‘ as defined in S. 123(c) (2) -- in such a case provisions of S. 124A are attracted. [Para 10
(3) Interpretation of Statutes -- statutory provisions affecting vested rights -- cannot be given retrospective effect even by necessary implication. AIR 1984 SC 87, AIR 1976 SC 1471, AIR 1989 SC 1247 and (1995) 2 SCC 630 followed. [Para 13
(4) Railways Act, 1989 -- Ss. 123(c) and 124A -- provisions under -- deal with vested right of passengers -- they have prospective effect from the date they are brought on statute book.
The right of a bona fide passenger to be compensated for a loss incurred as a result of an untoward incident was included in the Act with effect from 1.8.1994, when sub-section (c) of section 123 and section 124A of 1989 Act were introduced. There can be little doubt that these provisions deal with substantive rights of a bona fide railway passenger. These rights were recognized with effect from 1.8.1994. There is nothing in the language of section 123 or section 124A to indicate that these provisions are to apply retrospectively. 1995(2) TAC 664 (Ker.) dissented from. [Paras 14 & 15
(5) Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 -- S. 13(1A) -- Railways Act, 1989 -- S. 124A -- ‘now payable by the Railway Administration under section 124A‘ -- words as used in S. 13(1A) of 1987 Act -- clearly indicate that such claim was not payable prior to insertion of new provision w.e.f 1.8.1994.
Words "now payable by the Railway Administration under section 124A" used in section 13(1A) of 1987 Act indicate that such claims were not payable by the Railway Administration prior to insertion of sub-section (1A). 2001(2) TAC 250 (SC) followed.
Relevance of the date of untoward incident lies in the fact that right to claim compensation from the Railway Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. It clearly implies that the right to be compensated for an untoward incident cannot be acquired on a date on which section 124A was not on the statute book. [Para 15
(6) Interpretation of Statutes -- words of statute clear, plain and unambiguous -- Courts are bound to give effect to them irrespective of consequence. AIR 1992 SC 1981 followed. [Para 20
(7) Railways Act, 1989 -- S. 124A -- provision not retrospective 2002(2) JLJ 289 and AIR 1998 SC 1659 referred to.2003(1) BLJ 1 = 2003(2) MPWN 60 followed. [Paras 21 & 22
(8) Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 -- S. 17(2) -- extension of period for preferring claim for compensation -- right to claim not available -- question of extension does not arise.
The object of statute of limitation is not to create any right but to prescribe period. within which legal proceedings may be instituted for enforcement of right which exists under substantiative law. Even if the Court has power to condone the delay it has no power to create any right. The Court can condone the delay only when the right exists. 1996(1) T AC 796 distinguished. [Para 25 & 24
(9) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 -- Ss. 13 (1A) and 24 -Railways Act, 1989 -- S. 124A (as inserted on 1.8. 1994) -- case involving untoward incident -- shall be decided only by Railway Claims Tribunal. 2002(2) JLJ 289 relied on. [Para 26
¼1½ jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989&/kkjk 123¼x½ rFkk 124d ¼1-8-1994½ dks ;Fkk var%LFkkfir½&mica/k Hkfo";y{kh gSa&vfç; ?kVuk bu mica/kksa ds var%LFkkiu ls iwoZ gqbZ&vkPNkfnr ughaA e`rd dh vafre ;k=k 14 tqykbZ 1992 dks vkjaHk gqbZ tc og es?kuxj ds fy, Fkkanyk ij 130 vi jsyxkM+h ij p<+kA og jsyxkM+h ls fxj x;k rFkk jsyxkM+h mlds Åij ls fudy xbZA e`rd ds fof/kd çfrfuf/k gksus ds dkj.k çR;FkhZx.k us ?kVuk ls yxHkx pkj o"kZ i‘pkr~ 5-8-1996 dks vf/kdj.k ds le{k çfrdj ds fy, nkok Qkby fd;kA ¿iSjk 2 vkosnu Qkby djus esa gqvk foyac vf/kdj.k }kjk ekQ dj fn;k x;kA vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk ds ckjs esa vf/kdj.k dk fu"d"kZ bl vk‘k; dk Fkk fd mls vkosnu fofuf‘pr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk FkhA vf/kdj.k }kjk ;g Hkh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr okLrfod ;k=h ds :i esa ;k=k dj jgk Fkk] ifj.kker%] mlds }kjk #- 2 yk[k dk çfrdj vf/kfu.khZr fd;k x;kA vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr jde ij 12 izfr‘kr çfro"kZ dh nj ls C;kt Hkh vf/kfu.khZr fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ jsy vf/kdj.k ds iwoksZDr vkns‘k ls xaHkhj :i ls O;fFkr gS rFkk mlds }kjk ;g vihy mldh oSS/krk vkSj fof/kekU;rk ij vk{ksi djrs gq, Qkby dh xbZ gSA ¿iSjk 4 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % lu~ 1989 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 123¼x½ rFkk 124d ds ikB ls geus ik;k fd og Hkfo";y{kh çÑfr dh gSa rFkk fcxr ?kVuk,¡ muls vkPNkfnr ugha gSaA iwoksZDr la‘kks/ku dh] tks nq?kZVuk ds fnukad ds i‘pkr~ ço`Ùk gqvk gS] O;kfIr ls foxr ?kVuk,¡ vçHkkfor jgh gSaA D;ksafd bl ekeys esa nq?kZVuk la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e ds ço`Ùk gksus ds iwoZ gqbZ Fkh] blfy, og la‘kks/ku }kjk vkPNkfnr ugha gks ldrhA ¿iSjk 17 la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e esa jsy ij ubZ ck/;rk l`ftr dh xbZ gSA mls rc rd Hkwry{kh çHkko ugha fn;k tk ldrk tc rd ,slk vFkkZUo;u lqLi"V ‘‘kCnksa ls vFkok vko‘;d foo{kk ls ugha fudyrk gksA ¿iSjk 18 ¼2½ jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989&/kkjk 123¼x½ ¼2½ rFkk 124 ¼d½ ¼1-8-1994 dks ;Fkk var%LFkkfir½&;k=h jsyxkM+h ls fdlh ;k=h dk nq?kZVuko‘k fxjuk&/kkjk 123¼x½ ¼2½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr vfç; ?kVuk gS&,sls ekeys esa /kkjk 124d ds mica/k vkÑ"V gksrs gSaA ¿iSjk 10 ¼3½ fof/k dk fuoZpu&fufgr vf/kdkj çHkkfor djus okys dkuwuh mica/k&vko‘;d foo{kk }kjk Hkh Hkwry{kh çHkko ugha fn;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 87] , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 1471] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1247 rFkk ¼1995½ 2 ,l lh lh 630 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 13 ¼4½ jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989&/kkjk 123¼x½ rFkk 124d&mica/k&;kf=;ksa ds fufgr vf/kdkj ds ckjs esa gSa&dkuwu laxzg esa yk, tkus ds fnukad ls mudk Hkfo";y{kh çHkko gSA vfç; ?kVuk ds ifj.kker% gqbZ gkfu ds fy, çfrÑr fd, tkus dk okLrfod ;k=h dk vf/kdkj 1-8-1994 ls çHkkoh djrs gq, vf/kfu;e esa lfEefyr fd;k x;k Fkk] tc lu~ 1989 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 123 dh mi/kkjk ¼x½ rFkk /kkjk 124d ds iqj%LFkkfir dh xbZ FkhA bl ckjs esa fcYdqy lansg ugha gks ldrk fd ;g mica/k ln~Hkkfod jsy ;k=h ds ewy vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa gSaA bu vf/kdkjksa dks 1-8-1994 ls çHkkoh ekU;rk nh xbZA /kkjk 123 vFkok /kkjk 124d dh Hkk"kk esa ,slk dqN ugha gSa ftlls minf‘kZr gks fd bu mica/kksa dks Hkwry{kh :i ls ykxw fd;k tkuk gSA 1995 ¼2½ Vh , lh 664 ¼dsjy½ folEerA ¿iSjk 14 ,oa 15 ¼5½ jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987&/kkjk 13 ¼1d½&jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989&/kkjk 124d&^vc /kkjk 124d ds v/khu jsy ç‘kklu }kjk lans;*&lu~ 1987 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 ¼1d½ esa ;Fkkç;qDr ‘‘kCn&Li"Vr% bafxr fd 1-8-1994 ls çHkkoh u, mica/k ds var%LFkkiu ls iwoZ ,slk nkok lans; ugha FkkA lu~ 1987 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1d½ esa ç;qDr ‘‘kCnksa ^vc /kkjk 124d ds v/khu jsy ç‘kklu }kjk lans;* ls minf‘kZr gksrk gS fd mi/kkjk ¼1d½ ds var%LFkkiu ls iwoZ ,sls nkos jsy ç‘kklu }kjk lans; ugha FksA 2001¼2½ Vh , lh 250 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA vfç; ?kVuk ds fnukad dh lqlaxrrk bl rF; ij vk/kkfjr gS fd jsy ç‘kklu ls çfrdj dk nkok djus dk vf/kdkj {kfrxzLr O;fDr dks mlh fnukad dks vftZr gksxkA blls Li"Vr% miyf{kr gksrk gS fd vfç; ?kVuk ds fy, çfrÑr fd, tkus dk vf/kdkj ml fnukad dks vftZr ugha gks ldrk tc /kkjk 124d dkuwu&laxzg esa gh ugha FkhA ¿iSjk 15 ¼6½ fof/k dk fuoZpu&dkuwu ds ‘‘kCn Li"V] lh/ks rFkk vlafnX/k&Uk;ky;] ifj.kke ls fujis{k] mUgsa çHkkoh djus dks ck/; gSaA , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 1981 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 20 ¼7½ jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989&/kkjk 124d&mica/k Hkwry{kh ughaA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 289 rFkk , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 1659 fufnZ"VA 2003¼1½ ch ,y ts 1&2003¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 60 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 21 ,oa 22 ¼8½ jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987&/kkjk 17¼2½&çfrdj dk nkok çLrqr djus dh vof/k c<+kbZ tkuk&nkok djus dk vf/kdkj miyC/k ugha&c<+kus dk ç‘u mn~Hkwr gh ugha gksrkA ifjlhek ds dkuwu dk mn~ns‘; fdlh vf/kdkj dh l`f"V djuk ugha] vfirq ml vof/k dks fofgr djuk gS ftlds Hkhrj eq[; fof/k ds v/khu fo|eku vf/kdkj ds çorZu ds fy, fof/kd dk;Zokgh lafLFkr dh tk ldrh gSA U;k;ky; dks foyac ekQ djus dh ‘kfDr gks rc Hkh mls fdlh vf/kdkj dh l`f"V djus dh ‘kfDr ugha gSA U;k;ky; }kjk foyac dsoy rc ekQ fd;k tk ldrk gS tc vf/kdkj fo|eku gksA 1996¼1½ Vh , lh 796 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 25 ,oa 24 ¼9½ jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987&/kkjk 13¼1d½ rFkk 24&jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989&/kkjk 124d ¼1-8-1994 dks ;Fkk var%LFkkfir½&ekeys esa vfç; ?kVuk varoZfyr&dsoy jsy nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk fofuf‘pr fd;k tk,xkA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 289 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 26
Jain, J. -- 1. Union of India has filed the present appeal under section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1987'), aggrieved by the award dated 12.6.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Original Application No. 628/96. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to the respondents who are the legal representatives of deceased Sadashiv, who died due to a fall from a running train.
2. The final journey for the deceased began on July 14, 1992, when he boarded 130 Up train at Thandala for Meghnagar. He fell from the train and the train ran over him. The respondents, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim for compensation before the Tribunal after about 4 years of the incident, on 5.8.1996.
3. The appellant contested the claim of the respondents on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. It was also contended by the Union of India that section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the' Act of 1989'), providing for compensation on account of an untoward incident was inserted by Railway Amendment Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amending Act') with effect from 1.8.1994 and the alleged incident occurred prior to that date. Therefore, respondents cannot get the benefit of the amendment. It was further contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
4. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the finding of the Tribunal was to the effect that it had jurisdiction to decide the application. The Tribunal also held that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger consequently it awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount. The appellant-Railways is seriously aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and has filed this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the same.
5. The respondents have filed a reply to the memo of appeal. This in fact appears to be a cross objection, though the same has been styled as reply. In this reply, which we are treating as a cross objection, the respondents have submitted that they are entitled to a claim of Rs. 4 lacs and they have also prayed for enhancing the claim from Rs. 2 lacs to 4 lacs in view of substitution of Rs. 4 lac in place of Rs. 2 lacs in the schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents Compensation Rules, 1990, with effect from 1.11.1997 by GSR 620 (E), Dated 25th October, 1997.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Shri S.K. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant railways has summarised his attack on the impugned order as under:
1. that the provisions regarding untoward incident were inserted in Railway Act by Amending Act and. they are in force with effect from August 1, 1994, therefore, the present case is not covered by the amended provisions as the incident occurred prior thereto, on July 14, 1992.
2. that, the application was barred by limitation;
3. the claim was not triable by Railway Claims Tribunal.
4. that the deceased was travelling without ticket and was not a bona fide passenger, therefore, his legal representatives are not entitled to any claim.
8. Per Contra, Shri B.N. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents has not only supported the judgment of the Tribunal awarding compensation but has also submitted that the compensation awarded is inadequate and the same be enhanced to Rs. 4 lacs. He submitted that Railway Act is a beneficial Legislation enacted in the interest of passengers therefore, it should be interpreted liberally and, should also be given retrospective effect.
9. We are mainly concerned with two provisions of the Act of 1989 which are enshrined in sections 123 and 124A and two sections of the Act of 1987 namely, sections 13 and 17. Section 123
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
