Civil Appeal Nos.1265-1266/2019 @ SLP(C)Nos.28032-33/2018               Union of India  vs.  Radha Yadav

                                      1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  1265-1266  OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos.28032-28033 of 2018)

UNION OF INDIA ……Appellant

VERSUS

RADHA YADAV ..…. Respondent

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos.1267-1268 of 2019  @ Special leave Petition (Civil) Nos.2993-2994 of 2019

(D.No.33760)

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. While travelling from Burdwan Railway Station to Howrah Railway

Station on 02.10.2003 in a local train one Dasarath Yadav had peeped his head

out of the compartment door and his head collided with a post by the side of

the railway track resulting in an accident where he lost his life.  The Railway

Claims Tribunal, Kolkata by its judgment and order dated 27.09.2007 found

             Civil Appeal Nos.1265-1266/2019 @ SLP(C)Nos.28032-33/2018               Union of India  vs.  Radha Yadav

                                      2 that the deceased was a bona fide railway passenger and that the incident was

an  “untoward  incident” in  terms  of  the  provisions  of  Section  123 of  the

Railways  Act,  1989  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Act”).   The  Tribunal,

however, found that the deceased was victim of his own act and as such no

compensation was payable.  

3. The dismissal of the Claim Petition was challenged by the respondent

i.e. widow of the deceased by filing FMA No.858 of 2012 in the 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  payable  in  respect  of  death  and

injuries.   During  the  pendency  of  the  matter  by  way  of  amendment,  the

amount of compensation which was earlier at the 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-A of the

Act the ‘Principle of Strict Liability’ would arise and as such the Tribunal was

not right in denying compensation to the respondent.   While allowing the

appeal, the High Court held the respondent to be entitled to compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/-  with interest  @ 9% per  annum.  The judgment  of  the High

             Civil Appeal Nos.1265-1266/2019 @ SLP(C)Nos.28032-33/2018               Union of India  vs.  Radha Yadav

                                      3 Court in the present case was delivered on 03.03.2017.  The challenge raised

by way of review petition was also rejected on 30.11.2017.

6. On 09.05.2018 in the case of  Union of India   v.  Rina Devi1  this

Court considered the following questions: i) Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the  prescribed  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 enough to 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 context should be taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just and fair from time to time. In this context, rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Once concept of interest has been introduced, principles of Workmen Compensation Act can certainly be applied and judgment of 4-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo2 will  fully apply.  Wherever it  is found that the revised amount of applicable compensation as on  the  date  of  award  of  the  Tribunal  is  less  than  the

1 2018 SCC OnLine SC 507 =2018 AIR 2362 = 2018 SCR 417 = 2018 (7) SCALE 274 2 (1976) 1 SCC 289

             Civil Appeal Nos.1265-1266/2019 @ SLP(C)Nos.28032-33/2018               Union of India  vs.  Radha Yadav

                                      4 prescribed amount of compensation as on the date of accident with interest, higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded on the principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislation is certainly a piece of beneficent legislation.

19.  Accordingly,  we  conclude  that  compensation  will  be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern  as  in  accident  claim cases.  If  the  amount  so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of  the  Tribunal,  the claimant  will  be entitled to higher  of  the  two  amounts.  This  order  will  not  affect  the awards  which  have  already  become  final  and  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  Menon3 and  Kalandi  Charan Sahoo4 stands  explained  accordingly.  The  4-Judge  Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo2 holds the field on the subject  and  squarely  applies  to  the  present  situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest  and to give effect  to the mandate  of  beneficial  legislation,  if  compensation  as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised  amount  with  interest,  the  higher  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 Devi1.

3  (2001) 3 SCC 714 4  2018 (7) SCJ 159 = (2017) SCC Online SC 1638

             Civil Appeal Nos.1265-1266/2019 @ SLP(C)Nos.28032-33/2018               Union of India  vs.  Radha Yadav

                                      5 8. When the  matter  was  taken up,  it  was  submitted  on behalf  of  the

appellant  that  grant  of  interest  on  the  sum  of  Rs.8,00,000/-  was  not

consistent with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rina Devi1.  It

was contended that despite said decision, in number of cases interest was

being awarded on the revised amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.  In the peculiar facts

and circumstances, this Court did not find it appropriate to issue notice to the

respondent but appointed Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Senior Advocate as

amicus curiae  to assist the Court.  It was made clear that the respondent

shall be entitled to the benefit ordered by the High Court irrespective of the

decision as regards question of law raised in the matter.

9. We  heard  Mr.  Vikramjit  Banerjee,  learned  Additional  Solicitor

General for the appellant and Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned amicus curiae.  

10. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration

as in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Devi1 is very

clear.  What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation

payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be

calculated.  If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as

on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these

             Civil Appeal Nos.1265-1266/2019 @ SLP(C)Nos.28032-33/2018               Union of India  vs.  Radha Yadav

                                      6 two amounts.    Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment

was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in

existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of

interest would be calculated.  If there be any difference between the amount

so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the

award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation.

For  instance,  in  case  of  a  death  in  an  accident  which  occurred  before

amendment,  the  basic  figure  would  be  Rs.4,00,000/-.   If,  after  applying

reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-,

which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled

to Rs.8,00,000/-.  If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate

of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would

be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-.  The idea is to afford the

benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible.  Thus, according to us, the

matter is crystal clear.  The issue does not need any further clarification or

elaboration.

11. Consequently,  we  must  hold  that  the  High  Court  was  in  error  in

awarding interest on the sum of Rs.8 lakhs in the instant case.  Where the

accident had occurred before the amendment, it ought to have considered the

             Civil Appeal Nos.1265-1266/2019 @ SLP(C)Nos.28032-33/2018               Union of India  vs.  Radha Yadav

                                      7 matter in the light of the principle laid down in Rani Devi1.  We, therefore,

set  aside  the  impugned  judgment  and  allow the  appeals.   However,  the

respondent, in any case, would not be affected in any manner and will be

entitled to the sum awarded by the High Court.

12. We must  also  note  an  important  aspect  which was  brought  to  our

notice by the learned  amicus curiae.  He placed summary of four Reports

regarding safety in Indian Railways.  Those Reports are:-

1. Anil  Kakodkar  High  Level  Safety  Review  Committee,

17.02.2012;

2. Twelfth Report of 16th Lok Sabha on safety and security in

Railways;

3. Report  No.14  of  2016  of  the  Comptroller  and  Auditor

General  of  India  on  Suburban  Train  Services  in  Indian

Railways; and

4. Twenty-Third Report of Standing Committee on Railways

(2013-14) Fifteenth Lok Sabha, Ministry of Railways Report

on Suburban Train Services of Indian Railways, with particular

emphasis on Security of Women Passengers.

13. The  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  readily  agreed  to  the

suggestion that the Railways must consider the matter in right earnest and

see that the concerns regarding safety are immediately addressed.  On the

             Civil Appeal Nos.1265-1266/2019 @ SLP(C)Nos.28032-33/2018               Union of India  vs.  Radha Yadav

                                      8 request of the learned Additional Solicitor General, we, therefore, adjourn

the matter for eight weeks only to consider the issues regarding the safety as

highlighted by the learned amicus curiae.  

14.  Ordered accordingly.

15. In view of the order passed in the lead matter, namely, Civil Appeals

arising out of Union of India v. Radha Yadav, Civil Appeal Nos 1267-1268

of  2019  @  SLP(C)  Nos.2993-2994  of  2019  (D.No.33760  of  2018)  are

disposed of in the same terms.  

……..…..……..……J.    (Uday Umesh Lalit)

.……….……………J.                                    (Indira Banerjee)

New Delhi; January 29, 2019.