UNION OF INDIA versus RADHA YADAV on 29 January 2019

[2019] 1 S.C.R. 741

UNION OF INDIA

v.

RADHA YADAV

(Civil Appeal Nos. 1265-1266 of 2019)

JANUARY 29, 2019

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]

Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)Rules, 1990 – Schedule to the rules – Compensation payable inrespect of death – In the instant case, the accidental death of thedeceased-victim took place when he was travelling in a train –Victim peeped his head out of compartment door and his headcollided with a post by the side of railway track resulting in accidentin which he lost his life – During pendency of the matter by way ofamendment, amount of compensation which was earlier at the levelof Rs.4 lakhs in case of death was raised to Rs.8 lakhs – Tribunalheld that the deceased was victim of his own act and as such nocompensation was payable – On appeal, High Court awardedcompensation of Rs.8 lakhs with interest – Special Leave Petitionwas filed in the month of September 2018 i.e. after the decision inRina Devi in which it was held that wherever it is found that therevised amount of applicable compensation as on the date of awardof the Tribunal is less than the prescribed amount of compensationas on the date of accident with interest, higher of the two amountsought to be awarded on the principle of beneficial legislation –Held: In view of the said decision, if the liability had arisen beforethe amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per theSchedule as was in existence before the amendment and on suchbasic figure, reasonable rate of interest would be calculated – Ifthere be any difference between the amount so calculated and theamount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, thehigher of two figures would be the measure of compensation – Inview of this, High Court was in error in awarding interest on thesum of Rs.8 lakhs in the instant case – Matter adjourned for eightweeks only to consider the issues regarding safety in Indian Railways.

741

A

B

CDE

FG

742SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ADisposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. In Rina Devi, this Court had laid down is that theamount of compensation payable on the date of accident withreasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amountso calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date ofBthe award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these twoamounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before theamendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per theSchedule as was in existence before the amendment and on suchbasic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. Ifthere be any difference between the amount so calculated andCthe amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award,the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation.The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extentpossible. Where the accident had occurred before the amendment,it ought to have considered the matter in the light of the principleDlaid down in Rina Devi. [Paras 10, 11][745-F-H; 746-C]

2. The Railways must consider the matter in right earnestand see that the concerns regarding safety are immediatelyaddressed. On the request of the Additional Solicitor Generalthe matter was adjourned for eight weeks only to consider theEissues regarding the safety. [Para 13][746-G-H]

Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018] 4 SCR 417 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

[2018] 4 SCR 417relied onPara 6

FCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1265-1266 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2017 of the HighCourt at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 858 of 2012 and order dated 30.11.2017in R.V.W. No. 127 of 2017.

G

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 1267-1268 of 2019.

Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curie)

H

Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Vikas Singh Jangra, Shashi Bhushan,.Amit Kumar Pathak, Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Sachin Sharma,A.K. Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for theappearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. While travelling from Burdwan Railway Station to HowrahRailway Station on 02.10.2003 in a local train one Dasarath Yadav hadpeeped his head out of the compartment door and his head collided witha post by the side of the railway track resulting in an accident where helost his life. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata by its judgment andorder dated 27.09.2007 found that the deceased was a bona fide railwaypassenger and that the incident was an “untoward incident” in termsof the provisions of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafterreferred to as “the Act”). The Tribunal, however, found that the deceasedwas victim of his own act and as such no compensation was payable.

3. The dismissal of the Claim Petition was challenged by therespondent i.e. widow of the deceased by filing FMA No.858 of 2012 inthe High Court at Calcutta.

4. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents(Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules)provide for a Schedule prescribing the amount of compensation payablein respect of death and injuries. During the pendency of the matter byway of amendment, the amount of compensation which was earlier atthe level of Rs.4,00,000/- in case of death was raised to Rs.8,00,000/-.

5. It was found by the High Court that in terms of Section 124-Aof the Act the ‘Principle of Strict Liability’ would arise and as such theTribunal was not right in denying compensation to the respondent. Whileallowing the appeal, the High Court held the respondent to be entitled tocompensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. Thejudgment of the High Court in the present case was delivered on03.03.2017. The challenge raised by way of review petition was alsorejected on 30.11.2017.

6. On 09.05.2018 in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi[1]this Court considered the following questions:

1 2018 SCC OnLine SC 507 =2018 AIR 2362 = 2018 SCR 417 = 2018 (7) SCALE 274

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

i) Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per theprescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/incident or on the date of order awarding compensation;

ii) Whether principle of strict liability applies;

iii) Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enoughBto maintain a claim;

iv) Rate of interest.

As regards the first question this Court ruled as under:- “18. ……. We are of the view that law in the present contextCshould be taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date ofthe accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be theamount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from thedate of accident till the payment at such rate as may be consideredjust and fair from time to time. In this context, rate of interestDapplicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to bereasonable and fair. Once concept of interest has been introduced,principles of Workmen Compensation Act can certainly be appliedand judgment of 4-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo[2]will fully apply. Wherever it is found that the revised amount ofapplicable compensation as on the date of award of the TribunalEis less than the prescribed amount of compensation as on the dateof accident with interest, higher of the two amounts ought to beawarded on the principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislationis certainly a piece of beneficent legislation.

19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payableFas applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may beconsidered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern asin accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less thanthe amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal,the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. Thisorder will not affect the awards which have already become finalGand where limitation for challenging such awards has expired,this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay.Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon[3] and Kalandi Charan Sahoo[4]

2 (1976) 1 SCC 289

3 (2001) 3 SCC 714

H 4 2018 (7) SCJ 159 = (2017) SCC Online SC 1638

stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment inPratap Narain Singh Deo[2] holds the field on the subject andsquarely applies to the present situation. Compensation asapplicable on the date of the accident has to be given withreasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficiallegislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award ofthe Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, thehigher of the two amounts has to be given.”

7. This Special Leave Petition was filed in the month of September,2018 i.e. after the aforesaid decision of this Court in Rina Devi[1].

8. When the matter was taken up, it was submitted on behalf ofthe appellant that grant of interest on the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was notconsistent with the law laid down by this Court in the case of RinaDevi[1]. It was contended that despite said decision, in number of casesinterest was being awarded on the revised amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. Inthe peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court did not find it appropriateto issue notice to the respondent but appointed Mr. Brijender Chahar,learned Senior Advocate as amicus curiae to assist the Court. It wasmade clear that the respondent shall be entitled to the benefit ordered bythe High Court irrespective of the decision as regards question of lawraised in the matter.

9. We heard Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral for the appellant and Mr. Brijender Chahar, learnedamicuscuriae.

10. The issue raised in the matter does not really require anyelaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of RinaDevi[1] is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount ofcompensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate ofinterest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less thanthe amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant wouldbe entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liabilityhad arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure wouldbe as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment andon such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. Ifthere be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amountprescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of twofigures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case ofa death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic AB

CD

E

F

G

H

Afigure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate ofinterest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which wasbrought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled toRs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation withrate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensationwould be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is toBafford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus,according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need anyfurther clarification or elaboration.

11. Consequently, we must hold that the High Court was in errorin awarding interest on the sum of Rs.8 lakhs in the instant case. WhereCthe accident had occurred before the amendment, it ought to haveconsidered the matter in the light of the principle laid down in RaniDevi[1]. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and allow theappeals. However, the respondent, in any case, would not be affectedin any manner and will be entitled to the sum awarded by the HighDCourt.

12. We must also note an important aspect which was brought toour notice by the learned amicus curiae. He placed summary of fourReports regarding safety in Indian Railways. Those Reports are:-

1. Anil Kakodkar High Level Safety Review Committee,E17.02.2012;

2. Twelfth Report of 16[th] Lok Sabha on safety and security inRailways;

3. Report No.14 of 2016 of the Comptroller and Auditor Generalof India on Suburban Train Services in Indian Railways; andF

4. Twenty-Third Report of Standing Committee on Railways(2013-14) Fifteenth Lok Sabha, Ministry of Railways Reporton Suburban Train Services of Indian Railways, with particularemphasis on Security of Women Passengers.

G13. The learned Additional Solicitor General readily agreed to thesuggestion that the Railways must consider the matter in right earnestand see that the concerns regarding safety are immediately addressed.On the request of the learned Additional Solicitor General, we, therefore,adjourn the matter for eight weeks only to consider the issues regardingthe safety as highlighted by the learned amicus curiae.H

UNION OF INDIA v. RADHA YADAV[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

14. Ordered accordingly.

15. In view of the order passed in the lead matter, namely, CivilAppeals arising out of Union of India v. Radha Yadav, Civil Appeal Nos1267-1268 of 2019 @ SLP(C) Nos.2993-2994 of 2019 (D.No.33760 of2018) are disposed of in the same terms.

Devika Gujral

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H