KAMUKAYI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 16 May 2023

[2023] 6 S.C.R. 399

KAMUKAYI & ORS.

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.(Civil Appeal No. 3799 of 2023)

MAY 16, 2023

[SURYA KANT AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Railways Act, 1989 – ss. 123(c) and 124 – Railway Passengers(Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 – r. 7– Claim for compensation – Victim-deceased fell down from therunning train between platform and track and sustained graveinjuries including decapitation and amputation of right hand –Deceased died on the spot – FIR was registered – Inquest reportand final report submitted clearly revealed that death was an outcomeof untoward railway incident – Claim petition was filed before theRailways claims Tribunal – Claims Tribunal held that appellantshad failed to prove the death of deceased in an untoward incidentand he was not the bonafide passenger making the Railway liablefor grant of compensation – High Court upheld the decision of theTribunal – On appeal, held: On perusal of the allegations of theFIR, inquest report, final report and the investigation reportprepared under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2003, the allegation regardingan untoward incident, as pleaded in the claim petition, is fullyestablished and supported by the testimony of AW1, son of thedeceased – Therefore, the findings recorded in this regard by theClaims Tribunal and the High Court are without considering thedocuments of the investigation and the final report – As far as issuewhether the deceased was a bonafide passenger is concerned, theocular statement of AW1 that he had procured valid train ticket andgiven to deceased, the averments made in the claim petition wastestified and even in the cross-examination, he has reiterated thatticket for deceased was purchased and sent him off at Station – Thesaid averment finds support from inquest report by inquest officer,final report by investigation officer – Considering the materialbrought on record, the initial burden that the deceased passengerwas having a valid ticket has been discharged shifting onus on theRailway Administration to disprove the said fact – Railways had

399

A

B

CD

EF

GH

Anot discharged the burden – Therefore, the Railway Administrationliable to pay compensation prescribed.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. On perusal of the allegations of the FIR, inquestreport, final report and the investigation report prepared underBRule 7 of the Rules, 2003, the allegation regarding an untowardincident, as pleaded in the claim petition, is fully established andsupported by the testimony of AW1, son of the deceased.Therefore, the findings recorded in this regard by the ClaimsTribunal and the High Court are without considering theCdocuments of the investigation and the final report accepted bythe DRM on 7.6.2017 and therefore such findings are perverseand set-aside. [Para 17][407-G-H; 408-A]

2. Now, reverting to the issue whether the deceased was abona fide passenger? In this regard, the ocular statement of AW1,Dson of the deceased, who procured a valid train ticket for traveland handed it over to the deceased is on record. As per thestatement of AW1, the averments made in the claim petition havebeen testified and even in the cross-examination, he has reiteratedthat ticket for deceased was purchased for a sum of Rs. 10/- andsent him off at Station. The deceased fell down at Railway Station.EThe said averment of the claim petition and the statement ofStation Master finds support from inquest report prepared bythe Inquest Officer on the date of incidence i.e. 27.9.2014 andthe final report prepared by the Investigation Officer, RailwayPolice Station Trichy on 14.11.2014. The said reports have beenFreferred to in the investigation report dated 7.6.2017. Consideringthe material brought on record, in view of this Court, the initialburden that the deceased passenger was having a valid tickethas been discharged shifting onus on the Railway Administrationto disprove the said fact. Nothing has been placed before ClaimsTribunal or brought on record during the course of hearing thatGthe Railway Administration has discharged the burden of nothaving the valid railway ticket with the deceased passenger,except to say that during recovery ticket was not found. In absenceof any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained inany other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to payHcompensation as prescribed. [Para 18][408-B-F]

3. In view of above discussion, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that as per law laid down by this Court inRina Devi, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that victim-deceased died in an untoward incident which took place on27.9.2014 while travelling in a passenger Train No. 5684 and hewas a bona fide passenger. The findings adversely recorded bythe Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are perverse,therefore set-aside. In view of this Court, as per the provisionscontained in Section 124A of Railways Act and Railway Accidentsand Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, theappellants are entitled to claim compensation. [Para 19][408-F-H]

4. The claimants are held entitled to seek compensation,but during hearing, it is brought to notice that after the date ofaccident and filing the claim petition on 25.7.2016, theCompensation Rules, 1990 were amended w.e.f. 01.01.2017.Therefore, the amount of compensation has to be arrived at whiletaking into account the amended Rules. The appellants are heldentitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along withinterest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application tillits realisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate ofinterest, if the final figure is less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, thenappellants shall be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. [Paras 20, 23][409-A-B; 411-E-F]

Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572 : [2018]4 SCR 417; UOI v. Radha Yadav (2019) 3 SCC 410 :[2019] 1 SCR 741 – relied on.

Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India 2011SCC OnLine AP 828; Kamrunnissa v. Union of India(2019) 12 SCC 391; Union of India v. Dilip and Others2019 SCC Online SC 2119 – referred to.

Raj Kumari v. Union of India 1992 SCC OnLine MP96; Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India 2014 SCCOnLine Del 101 – referred to.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Case Law Reference

[2018] 4 SCR 417relied onpara 7[2019] 1 SCR 741relied onpara 7(2019) 12 SCC 391referred topara 10

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3799of 2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2021 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2442 of 2019.

Senthil Jagadeesan, Sajal Jain, Advs. for the Appellants.C

Amrish Kumar, Shuvodeep Roy, Shetty Udai Sagar, Vivek NarayanSharma, Mrs. Alka Agarwal, Amit Sharma B, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.D

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgement dated 26.03.2021 passedby the High Court of judicature of Madras in Civil Miscellaneous AppealNo. 2442/2019 filed by appellants. The High Court by the impugnedEjudgment held that appellants had failed to establish any untoward incidentor the deceased was a bona fide passenger however upholding theimpugned judgement dated 29.06.2017 of the Railway Claims Tribunal,Chennai Bench, claim petition filed seeking compensation for the deathof Muchamy @ Muthusamy was dismissed. Challenging both thejudgments, the claimants/appellants are before this Court.F

3. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that on 27.09.2014 thedeceased- Muchamy @ Muthusamy (husband of appellant 1 and fatherof appellants 2 and 3) was required to go for medical treatment toGovernment Hospital, Karur. He reached Lalapettai Railway Stationalong with his son (appellant 3), who purchased the railway ticket ofGKarur and handed over to deceased who boarded Train No. 56841- TrichyErode Passenger to reach Karur. When the train reachedMahadanapuram Railway Station, due to heavy crowd in the compartmentand jolting of the train, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from therunning train between the platform and track at KM 90/200-300 andsustained grave injuries including decapitation and amputation of rightH

hand. The deceased died on the spot. FIR was lodged in Railway PoliceStation, Karur, the inquest report was prepared and the final report hadalso been submitted which clearly reveals that death of the deceasedwas an outcome of untoward railway incident. The post- mortemconducted in the Government Hospital, Karur indicates that the cause ofdeath was due to shock and haemorrhage because of injuries on vitalorgans and decapitation of head. The claim petition was filed on 25.07.2016before the Railway claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench seeking compensationto the tune of Rs. 4 Lakhs with 12% interest per annum from the date offiling of application till its realisation.

4. The respondents contested the claim taking defence that thedeceased was not a bonafide passenger because his journey ticket wasnot found and only white coloured torn shirt in a mutilated condition withrose colour design lungi and red coloured underwear was recoveredfrom the spot. As per the inquest report, the dead body was found withhead decapitated at the level of right shoulder. It is stated that if deceasedhad fallen from running train, his body would not have been found outsidethe railway track. However, looking to the nature of injuries, as mentionedin Post-Mortem Report, the allegation of death of the deceased due tountoward incident was denied, therefore Southern Railway is not liable topay any compensation.

5. The record reveals that the claim petition was filed with somedelay which was condoned as per order dated 01.11.2016 by the ClaimsTribunal. The Claims Tribunal by its judgement dated 29.06.2017 dismissedthe claim application holding that the appellants have failed to prove thedeath of deceased in an untoward incident and he was not a bona fidepassenger making the Railway liable for grant of compensation. TheClaims Tribunal was influenced by the statement of one D. Ravishankar,Station Master before whom the search of dead body was made in thepresence of deceased’s son and at that time, journey ticket was notfound with the body. The Claims Tribunal has also relied upon the sketchmap and post-mortem report, while non- suiting the appellants.

6. On filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2442 of 2019 beforethe High Court, it was dismissed making an observation that the findingsof Claims Tribunal are not perverse as the deceased was not found to bea bona fide passenger and appellants have failed to prove the death ofdeceased is an outcome of untoward incident.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

A7.Assailing those findings, learned counsel for the appellants reliedupon the FIR, inquest report dated 27.09.2014 and the final report dated14.11.2014 and contended that occurrence was an outcome of untowardincident as defined under Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989(in short, “Railways Act”). It is further urged that as per the avermentsmade in the claim petition and the statement of claimant-appellantBManikandan (AW-1), it is apparent that he had purchased the ticket ofRs 10/- and handed it over to his father at Lalapettai Railway Station forthe journey in Train number 56841 from Lalapettai to Karur. Learnedcounsel placing reliance on the judgement of Union of India v. RinaDevi[1] urged, the initial burden of being bonafide passenger has beenCdischarged and the onus has been shifted on the Railway Authoritieswhich has not been discharged by them. Therefore, the findings of theClaims Tribunal and the High Court are perverse. It is further urged inthe light of judgement of UOI v. Radha Yadav[2] because death is proveddue to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being bona fidepassenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.D

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted thatthere are two necessary ingredients which need to be proved on strictparameters; first the deceased being a ‘bonafide passenger’ and secondbeing the occurrence of an ‘untoward incident’. As per the findingsconcurrently recorded by the Claims Tribunal and High Court, thoseEingredients have not been found proved, therefore the present appealmay be dismissed.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof provisions of the Railways Act, in particular Chapter XIII which dealswith the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury toFpassengers due to accidents. Section 123 (c) defines “untoward incident”.As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a traincarrying passengers would be an untoward incident. As per Section 124A,the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account ofuntoward incident. When in the course of working of railway, an untowardGincident occurs then whether or not there has been any wrongful act,neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration as such,would entitle a passenger who has been injured or died. The claim canbe maintained to recover the damages, and notwithstanding anything 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572H2 (2019) 3 SCC 410

contained in any other law the Railway is liable to pay compensation asprescribed for such untoward incident. By the explanation of the saidSection clarifying about ‘passenger’, it would include a person who haspurchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers onany date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untowardincident.

10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained theburden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises.While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgementof Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India[3]andthe judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union ofIndia[4], Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathivs. Union of India[5] and also considered the judgement of this Court inKamrunnissa vs. Union of India[6]and in para 29 concluded as thus-

“We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premiseswill not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which claim for compensation could bemaintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injuredor deceased willnotnegativetheclaimthathewasabonafidepassenger.Initial burden will beontheclaimant which can bedischarged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burdenwill then shift on the Railways and the issuecanbedecidedonthefactsshownortheattending circumstances. This will have to bedealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legalposition in this regard will stand explained accordingly.”

11. In view of the said legal position and on the basis of the pleadingsand the material placed on record before the Claims Tribunal, it is requiredto be analysed whether the findings of the Claims Tribunal and HighCourt are just or perverse.

12. As per the material placed, the FIR of the incident is registeredby the Railway Police Station, Karur on 27.9.2014 at 10 A.M. As per theaverments of the FIR, it revealed that on 27.9.2014, complainantManikandan (AW1) son of the deceased purchased a ticket of ErodePassenger Train from Lalapettai to Karur at Lalapettai Railway Station 3 1992 SCC OnLine MP 964 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1015 2011 SCC OnLine AP 8286 (2019) 12 SCC 391

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand gave it to his father Muchamy @ Muthusamy, who was going toGovernment Hospital, Karur for his medical treatment. At about 9 a.m.,he received information from his uncle Ayyappan that the deceased hadfallen from the train at Mahadanapuram Railway Station with decapitationand amputation of right arm. The inquest report was prepared on thesame day by the Inquest Officer specifying the circumstances underBwhich the accident took place, the relevant thereto is reproduced as under:

“The deceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy age 50/14, s/o Mookkan,Kodikkal Street, Lalapettai, in order to take medical treatment forthe wound on his leg on 27.09.2014 morning 8¼ hours he cameto Lalapettai Railway Station along with his son Manikandan andChis son purchased a train ticket for the deceased to travel fromLalapettai to Karur and he received the ticket and travelled toTrichy by Erode Passenger Train. While the train came toMahadanapuram Railway Station the deceased adrift and fallendownfromthetraincompartmentandentangled withtrainresultDofheaddecapitated,hand amputatedanddiedatthespot.”

13. The post-mortem was conducted by the Civil Assistant Surgeon,Government Head Quarters Hospital, Karur on the same day i.e.27.9.2014 and the Doctor opined regarding cause of death as under:

“The deceased would have appearance to have died of shock andEhaemorrhage and injury to vital organs and decapitation of headabout 4 to 8 hours prior to autopsy.”

14. The final report was prepared and findings are as under:

“In this case I enquired the circumstantial witnesses. They deposedFsame thing what they deposed before the Sub-Inspector, hence Iam not recording any statement separately. As per the investigationmade with occurrence place witness, inquest panchayatar witness,and as per enquiry with the doctor who done the post-mortem thedeceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy, 50/14, s/o Mookkan, KodikkalStreet, Lalapettai, Krishnarayapuram-TK, Karur-Dt used to go toGKarur GH for the medical treatment of the wound on his leg onthe date of occurrence came to station with his son by bicycleand his son purchased the ticket and sent him in the train Trichy toKarur and went to his job. The deceased Muchamy@Muthusamytravelling in thetrain came to Mahadanapuram railway station hefelldownfromthetrain,headwas decapitated,righthandH

amputatedand excessive of blood loss he died at spot. Hence, Ihave come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased is an“accidental death” and submittingthefinalreport.

The case ends.”

15. The Southern Railway submitted the investigation report dated7.6.2017 under Rule 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner ofInvestigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short “Rules, 2003).The said report refers the intimation to the Station Master,Mahadanapuram, wherein the occurrence of untoward incident has notbeen denied except to say that the passenger was travelling without aticket. In the said report, final conclusion of the enquiry was reported asunder:

“Enquiry reveals that on 27.9.2014, the deceased was on his wayto Government Hospital, Karur for medical treatment and travelledin T.No. 56841 Pass (Ex. TPJ-ED) from Lalapettai to Karur.When the said train was leaving after its scheduled stoppage, thedeceased fell down and died at the spot.”

16. The said finding of the investigation was recorded afterconsidering the statement of D. Ravisankar, Station Master, Tanjore, whowas on duty at Mahadanapuram Railway Station on 27.9.2014. As perhis statement, it is apparent that on 27.09.2014, Train No. 56841 arrivedat Mahadanapuram at 08:43 hrs and left at 08:44 hrs. While movingfrom platform it was stopped due to ACP in Coach No. 01446. When heattended the said coach, he noticed one male person aged about 50 yearswas run over and died on the track. Therefore, even as per the statementof D. Ravisankar, it is clear that on account of chain pulling in CoachNo. 01446, he noticed the dead body of the deceased was found lyingon the railway track. Looking to the said fact findings of the investigationreport, which is after considering the inquest report and final report ofthe Railway Police Station Inspector, Trichy, it is submitted in this regardthat untoward incident cannot be doubted in absence of any other material.

17. The said enquiry report was accepted by DRM on 7.6.2017.On perusal of the allegations of the FIR, inquest report, final report andthe investigation report prepared under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2003, theallegation regarding an untoward incident, as pleaded in the claim petition,is fully established and supported by the testimony of Manikandan-AW1,son of the deceased. Therefore, the findings recorded in this regard by A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Athe Claims Tribunal and the High Court are without considering thedocuments of the investigation and the final report accepted by the DRMon 7.6.2017 and therefore such findings are perverse and set-aside.

18. Now, reverting to the issue whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? In this regard, the ocular statement of AW1- Manikandan,Bson of the deceased, who procured a valid train ticket for travel fromLalapettai to Karur and handed it over to the deceased is on record. Asper the statement of AW1, the averments made in the claim petition havebeen testified and even in the cross-examination, he has reiterated thatticket for deceased from Lalapettai to Karur was purchased for a sumof Rs. 10/- and sent him off at Station to go to Karur. The deceased fellCdown at Mahadanapuram Railway Station. The said averment of theclaim petition and the statement of D. Ravisankar, Station Master findssupport from inquest report prepared by the Inquest Officer on the dateof incidence i.e. 27.9.2014 and the final report prepared by theInvestigation Officer, Railway Police Station Trichy on 14.11.2014. TheDsaid reports have been referred to in the investigation report dated7.6.2017. Considering the material brought on record, in our view, theinitial burden that the deceased passenger was having a valid ticket hasbeen discharged shifting onus on the Railway Administration to disprovethe said fact. Nothing has been placed before Claims Tribunal or broughton record during the course of hearing that the Railway AdministrationEhas discharged the burden of not having the valid railway ticket with thedeceased passenger, except to say that during recovery ticket was notfound. In absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anythingcontained in any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable topay compensation as prescribed.F19. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinionthat as per law laid down by this Court in Rina Devi (supra), it is provedbeyond reasonable doubt that deceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy diedin an untoward incident which took place on 27.9.2014 while travellingin a passenger Train No. 5684 and he was a bona fide passenger. TheGfindings adversely recorded by the Claims Tribunal and affirmed by theHigh Court are perverse, therefore set-aside. In our view, as per theprovisions contained in Section 124A of Railways Act and RailwayAccidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, theappellants are entitled to claim compensation.

20. In view of the above, the claimants are held entitled to seekcompensation, but during hearing, it is brought to our notice that after thedate of accident and filing the claim petition on 25.7.2016, theCompensation Rules, 1990 were amended w.e.f. 01.01.2017. Therefore,the amount of compensation has to be arrived at while taking into accountthe amended Rules. The said issue was considered by this Court in thecase of Rina Devi (supra), wherein in paragraphs 18 and 19, this Courthas observed as thus:

“18. The learned Amicus has referred to judgments of this Courtin Raman Iron Foundry and Kesoram Industries to submit thatquantum of compensation applicable is to be as on the award ofthe Tribunal as the amount due is only on that day and not earlier.In Kesoram Industries, the question was when for purposes ofcalculating “net wealth” under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 provisionfor payment of tax could be treated as “debt owed” within themeaning of Section 2(m) of the said Act. This Court held that“debt” was obligation to pay. The sum payable on a contingency,however, does not become “debt” until the said contingencyhappens. The liability to pay tax arises on such tax being quantified.But when the rate of tax is ascertainable, the amount can be treatedas debt for the year for which the tax is due for purposes of valuationduring the accounting year in question. There is no conflict in theratio of this judgment with the principle propounded in ThazhathePurayil Sarabi that in the present context right to compensationarises on the date of the accident. In Raman Iron Foundry, thequestion was whether a claim for unliquidated damages does notgive rise to “a debt” till the liability is determined. It was held thatno debt arises from a claim for unliquidated damages until theliability is adjudicated. Even from this judgment it is not possible tohold that the liability for compensation, in the present context, arisesonly on determination thereof and not on the date of accident.Since it has been held that interest is required to be paid, the premiseon which Rathi Menon is based has changed. We are of the viewthat law in the present context should be taken to be that theliability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amountapplicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable but theclaimant will get interest from the date of accident till the paymentat such rate as may be considered just and fair from time to time.In this context, rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Once concept ofinterest has been introduced, principles of the WorkmenCompensation Act can certainly be applied and judgment of thefour-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo will fully apply.Wherever it is found that the revised amount of applicablecompensation as on the date of award of the Tribunal is less thanthe prescribed amount of compensation as on the date of accidentwith interest, higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded onthe principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislation is certainlya piece of beneficent legislation.

B

B

19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payableas 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 finaland 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 and Kalandi Charan Sahoostands explained accordingly. The four-Judge Bench judgment inPratap Narain Singh Deo 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, the C

D

E

Fhigher of the two amounts has to be given.”

21. The said judgment was further explained by this Court in thecase of Radha Yadav (supra), relevant para 11 is reproduced as thus:

“11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require anyelaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Deviis very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount ofcompensation payable on the date of accident with reasonablerate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculatedis less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award,the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts.Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was G

H

brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as wasin existence before the amendment and on such basic figurereasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be anydifference between the amount so calculated and the amountprescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higherof two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance,in case of a death in an accident which occurred beforeamendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, afterapplying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to beless than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way ofamendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If,however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interestwere to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation wouldbe in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is toafford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus,according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does notneed any further clarification or elaboration.”

22. The said view has been reaffirmed by this Court in the case ofUnion of India vs. Dilip and others[7].

23. Accordingly and as per above discussion we allow this appealand set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by theHigh Court and also the Claims Tribunal dated 29.06.2017. Consequently,claim application is allowed. The appellants are held entitled forcompensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7%p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation. It ismade clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure isless than Rs. 8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondents within aperiod of eight weeks. No order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H