FA/115919/1997 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1159 of 1997 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ====================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================================== UNION OF INDIA - Appellant(s) Versus DHANIBEN WD/O DEVJI KARSAN AYER & 4 - Defendant(s) ====================================================== Appearance : MR NK MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MAHESH B SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. ====================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/115919/1997 2/3 JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 28.2.1997 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Claim Application No.TA 9600005 awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the present respondents along with interest at the rate of 12%. 2. On 30.10.1981 one Devji Karsan fell down from Train No.16 UP Saurashtra Express at Halvad at 1.15 hours. As a result of falling down he sustained serious injuries and his one leg was severed. Ultimately he had succumbed to the injuries. His legal heirs has therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition which was allowed as stated above. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the death was not an accidental death. Learned Advocate further submitted that the Tribunal has misinterpreted and misapplied the railway (Amendment Act 28 of 1994) and further erred in giving retrospective effect to the provisions. He further submitted that the interested awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. 4. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter while awarding the compensation. The factum of accidental death cannot be disputed inasmuch as the evidence on record shows injuries sustained by deceased and that that it was an accident. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to prove anything contrary to prove that it was not an accidental death. 5. As regards retrospective effect of the amended provisions is concerned, The Tribunal has considered the same in para 6 of the FA/115919/1997 3/3 JUDGMENT judgement. After considering the provisions the Tribunal was of the view that the amended provisions have been given retrospective effect and this view is supported by the decision in the case of Vijayshankar Vs. Union of India reported in 1995(2) TAC 664 Kerala wherein the Court has awarded compensation in such type of case. 6. As regards the interest part is concerned, it cannot be said that in the year 1996 the award of interest at the rate of 12% is on the higher side. Therefore this contention cannot be accepted. 7. In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI,J.] ar