Union of India vs Rina Devi

1.1 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. Rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. [Para 15.3][431-B-C]

1.2 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. 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. [Para 15.4][431-E-F, G]

Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 – held applicable.

Rathi Menon v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714 : [2001] 2 SCR 365 ; P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India (1998) 9 SCC 134 ; Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh (1998) 3 SCC 67 ; Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India (2010) TAC 420 SC ; Mohamadi v. Union of India (2011) ACJ 2356 ; Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, Bilaspur Civil Appeal No.5608 of 2017 decided on 25.4.2017 ; Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC

231 ; Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT Central Calcutta [1966] 2 SCR 688 – referred to.

Application of Principle of Strict Liabillity - Concept of Self Inflicted Injury:

2.1 Section 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an ‘untoward incident’. Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to section 124A. Coming to the proviso to Section 124A to the effect that no compensation is payable if passenger dies or suffers injury due to the situations mentioned therein, there is no difficulty as regards suicide or attempted suicide in which case no compensation may be payable. [Para 16.1, 16.2][432-B, C]

2.2 The concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. Death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under proviso to s. 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. [Para 16.6][435-B-D] Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527 ; Jameela v. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC

443 ; Joseph PT v. Union of India AIR 2014 Kerala

(12) ; Pushpa v. Union of India (2017) III ACC 799 (Bom) ; Shayam Narayan v. Union of India (2018) ACJ

702 – referred to.

Burden of Proof When Body Found on Railway Premises – Definition of Passenger:

3. Mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. [Para 17.4][438B-D] Raj Kumari v. Union of India (1993) ACJ 846 ; Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India (2015) ACJ 171 ; Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India 2013 ACJ 1061 ; Kamrunissa v. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 1436 : 2017 SCC Online SC 304 – referred to. Rate of Interest:

4. Though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi case held that rate of interest has to be at the rate of 6% from the date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi case, rate of interest has to be reasonable rate at par with accident claim cases. In absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises upto the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [Para 18][438-E-F]

Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India (2010) TAC

420 SC ; Mohamadi v Union of India (2011) ACJ 2356 ; Union of India v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah (2004) ACJ 529 ; Kaushalaya Devi v. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P. PLJR 2008 (3) 711 ; Agam

Shanthamma v Union of India (2004) ACJ 713 ; Union of India v. Leelamma 2009 (1) KLT 914 ; Union of India v. Surekha (2011) ACJ 1845 ; Ramdhan v. Union of India (2009) ACJ 2487; Union of India v. Nandabai (2016) ACJ 411; Asharani Das v Union of India 2009

(2) Cal LT 467 ; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. (1999) 8 SCC 254 ; United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Alavi (1998) 3 LLN 285 ; Rahamath Ulla and Ors v. Union of India Claim Application No. OA(II)U/168/2013 – referred to.