VERY IMPORTANT POINT
For determining compensation for a railway accident or untoward incident, Railway claims Tribunal must consider the rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation and not those rules of the date of accident.

Headnote:Railways Act, 1989-Section 124A-Accident by nutoward incident in Railway due to accidental falling of a today passenger resulting spinal cord rupture, amputation of right arm and right leg-Accident occurred as 3.9.1996-Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 6 lakh on 27.6.1997 on the amended rates done on 1.11.97 -High Court .. it to rates prevalent on date of accident-Whether proper? (No) Tribunal s award restored-Appeal allowed-Case law dismissed.
       Held : In our perception the provision for payment of interim relief indicated in Section 126 of the Act has no utility for deciding as to what should be the total amount of compensation payable to the injured or other claimant. The right of the injured to claim compensation as well as the liability of the Railway Administration are both reposed in Section 124A of the Act. The right is to maintain an action and recover the damages. The liability is to "pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed". (Para 22)
       The collection of the words "as may be prescribed" in Section 124A of the Act is to be understood as to mean "as may be prescribed from time to time". Sections 124 and 124A of the Act speak the same language that "the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation". As pointed above, it is the liability of the Railway Administration to "pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed". Hence the time of ordering payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of the compensation which is prescribed by the rules to be disbursed to the claimant. (Para 23)
       In Black s Law Dictionary, "compensation" is shown as "equivalent in money for a loss sustained, or giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; or recompense in value for some loss, injury or service especially when it is given by statute". It means when you pay the compensation in terms of money it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent value. (Para 24)
       In this context we may look at Section 128(1) also. It says that the right of any person to claim compensation before the Claims Tribunal as indicated in Section 124 or 124A shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under any other law for the time being in force. But there is an interdict that no person shall be entitled to claim compensation for more than once in respect of the same accident. This means that the party has two alternatives, one is to avail himself of his civil remedy to claim compensation based on common law or any other statutory provision, and the other is to apply before the Claims Tribunal under Section 124 or 124A of the Act. As he cannot avail himself of both the remedies he has to choose one between the two. The provisions in Chapter XIII of the Act are intended to provide a speedier remedy to the victims of accident and untoward incidents. If he were to choose the latter that does not mean that he should be prepared to get a lesser amount. He is given the assurance by the legislature that Central Government is saddled with the task of prescribing fair and just compensation in the rules from time to time. The provisions are not intended to give a gain to the Railway Administration but they are meant to afford just and reasonable compensation to the victims in a speedier measure. If a person files a suit the amount of compensation will depend upon what the court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence when he goes before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation the determination of the amount should be as on the date of such determination. (Para 25)
       Held consequently : From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation. (Para 29)
       Held finally : In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. We direct the Railway Administration to pay the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the appellant (if not already paid) within three months from today together with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from 27.6.1997 (the date of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal). (Para 35)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. "Misfortunes do not come single" is an old adage but even the author of that adage would not have imagined that multiplicity of misfotuness would visit the same person in a series on the same night, that too within the same hour. One may ask aghast, can the destiny be so cruel to a damsel.

3. Rathi Menon, a Commerce graduate of 22 years, was thrown off from a running during the night of a jinxed train journey as the consequence of a sudden jerk of the train. In the impact her spinal cord was ruptured and in a trice she turned a paralegic. After she fell down, the wheels of the train ran over her right arm severing it from the shoulder point forever. The train, not knowing what it did to one of its lawful and innocent passengers, continued its running leaving of paraplegic on the track itself on that dreadful night.

4. It was physiologically impossible for the young lady to move her leg from the position where she fell. Her right leg happened to remain on the rail-track, and unless a Good Samaritan had passed by that track during the night she had to remain there unmoved. As none like that came the poor female human being remained on the track bleeding and unattended by anyone.

5. Alas, within half an hour another train came along the same track which, without knowing that a badly mauled human being was lying ahead, ran over her right leg causing a sudden amputation of that leg also. Thus, within the span of less than an hour, she became a one-handed and one-legged paraplegic.

6. All those disasters happened during the night of 3.9.1996. While she remained on the track unattended by any one she happened to be spotted by an engine driver who was shunting a railway engine. He got her removed from that scene to the district hospital, and then to a Medical College Hospital where she had to undergo a long period of hospitalisation. However, she remained immovable forever.

7. Though she was unable to move by herself she was able to make two petitions before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 27.6.1997, in respect of the aforesaid two accidents. The Claims Tribunal awarded a total amount of six lakhs of rupees with the regret that it could not award more due to the ceiling imposed by the statutory rules. However the Claims Tribunal directed interest to accrue on the amount at the rate of 15 per annum from "the date of default".

8. The Railways Department, mindless as it was, dragged the helpless lady to the High court of Kerala before which the Administration filed an appeal challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal only on the ground that the amount awarded was excessive according to law of the Administration s interpretation.

9. The misfortune spree which was haunting the unfortunate lady bubble up once again when a Division Bench of the High Court had chosen to slash down substantially the compensation amount awarded to her, on the premise that the amount granted by the Claims Tribunal could not have been awarded as the disaster had not visited her after 1.11.1997. The Division Bench expressed the helplessness of law in helping the hapless female in her misery of the superlative dimension.

10. Though her body was disabled due to the paraplegia afflicted consequent to the rupture of the spinal cord, and though she became limbless in a major measure, she collected morale to approach the apex Court to ask whether the limbs of law could be so stretched as to give the limbless girl solace at least in the form of pecuniary compensation. We, therefore, heard Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Rekha Pandey, learned counsel for the Railway Administration.

11. There is no dispute on the factual position of which the following are some more details. Rathi menon lost her father earlier, and her mother became a widow. She passed her degree in commerce and secured a job in Bangalore. In her early twenties she was in search of better career prospects and it earned some response. S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 466

VERY IMPORTANT POINTFor determining compensation for a railway accident or untoward incident, Railway claims Tribunal must consider the rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation and not those rules of the date of accident.

Cases Referred (5)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
For determining compensation for a railway accident or untoward incident, Railway claims Tribunal must consider the rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation and not those rules of the date of accident.