RATHIMENON A v.

UNION OF INDIA

MARCH 13, 2001

[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B

Raihvay Accident Compensation Rules, 1990: Rule 3(2).

'""

Accident-Untoward incident-Compensation-Payable of-Rules in force on the date of accident or rules in force at the time of ordering of c payment-In acc01rlance with-Applicability of-Passenger tluvwn offfrom a running train and the wheels of the train ran over her right ann severing it J1vm shoulder point-Another train ran over her nght leg causing its amputation~ Raihvay Claims Tribunal awarded enhanced compensation a1 pa amended •\ Rules which came into force after the accident-But High Cou11 reduced the compensation qn the ground that the enhanced compensation was not payable D since the accident took place before amendment of Rules-Correctness of- Held: Time of ordering payment is more important to detennine the extent of compensation-Compensation has to be detennined with reference to rules at the time of payment of compensation-Hence, Claims Tribunal rightly awarded the enhanced compensation-Raihvays Act, 1989, Ss. 124-A and 128 E 1 Woni> and Phrases :

"As may be prescribed"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 124-A of the Raihvays Act, 1989.

The appellant was thrown offtrom a running train and the wheels of F the Train ran over the appellant's right arm severing it from the shoulder i

joint. Shortly thereafter another train ran over the appellant's right leg causing its sudden amputation.

The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 124-A of the G Railways Act, 1989 before the Railway Claims Tribunal. During the pendency of the claim Rule 3(2) of ftte Railway Accident Compensation Rules, 1990 was amended and the amount of compensation was enhanced.

The Tribunal awarded enhanced compensation in accordance with the

.) amended Rules. However, the High Court reduced the compensation on the ground that the enhanced compensation was not payable to the appel- H 365

. 1.

A lant as the accident took place prior to the amendment of the Rules. Hence. this appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The collocation of the words "as may be prescribed" in B Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is to be understood as to mean ''as may be prescribed from time to time". The relevance of the date of untoward incident is that the right to claim compensation from the Railway Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. The statute did not fix the amount of compensation, but left it to be determined by the c

Central Government from time to time by means of Rules. This delegation to the Central Government indicated that it was difficult for the Parliament to fix the amount because compensation amount is a varying phenomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous position to ascertain what would be just and reasonable compensation in respect of a myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into account very many factors. What the legislature wanted was that the victim of the accident must be paid compensation and the amount must represent a reality, which means the amount should be fair and reasonable compensation. Government have the better wherewithal to ascertain and fix such amount. It is for the said reason that the Parliament left it to the Government to discharge that function. Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act speak the same language that "the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation''. Hence, the time of ordering payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of the compensation, which is prescribed by the Rules to be disbursed to the claimant. [372-C-F]

2. tr a person files a suit the amount of compensation will depend upon what the court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence, when he goes before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation the determination of the amount should be as on the date of such determination. (373-F]

3. The Claims Tribunal must consider what the Railway Accident Compensation Rules, 1990 prescril!ed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation. (375-B]

Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, [1976) 1 SCC 289; PA. '- H Narayanan v. Union of India, [1998) 3 SCC 67; Maghar Singh v. Jashwant

Singh, [1998] 9 SCC 134; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v, V.K. Neelakandan, A [1999] 8 SCC 256; Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., [1999] 8 SCC 254; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v, Asokan, (1997) 1 KLT 608, referred to.

Black's Law Dictionary, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1778-1779 B of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.99 of the Kerala High Court in M.F.A: Nos. 1292 and 1293 of 1998-B:

K. Sukumaran, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Ms. Karthika S. and Ms. Lekha C Sudhakaran for the Appellant.

Ms. Rekha Pandey and Anil Kati yar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THOMAS, J, Leave granted.

"Misfortunes do not come single" is an old adage but even the author .of that adage would not have imagined that multiplicity of misfortunes would visit the same person in a series on the same night, that too

within the same hour. One may ask aghast, can the destiny be so cruel to E a damsel.

Rathi Menon, a Commerce graduate of 22 years, was thrown off from a running train during the .night of a jinxed train journey as the consequence of a sudden jerk of the train. In the impact her spinal cord was ruptured and in a trice she turned a paraplegic. After she fell down, the wheels of the train F ran over her right arm severing it from the shoulder point forever. The train,

~ not knowing what it did to one of its lawful and innocent passengers, continued its nnming leaving the paraplegic on the track itself on that dreadful night.

It was physiologically impossible for the yonng lady to move her leg from the position where she fell. Her right leg happened to remain on the rail-track, and unless a Good Samaritan had passed by that track during the . , night she had to remain there unmoved. As none like that came the poor female human being remained on the track bleeding and unattended by anyone.

A Alas, within half an hour another train crune along the same track which, without knowing that a badly mauled hum'm being was lying ahe; id, 1 ran over her right leg causing a sudden runputation of that leg also. Thus, within the span of less than an hour, she became a one-handed and one-legged paraplegic.

B All those disasters happened duri_ng the night of 3.9.1996. While she remained on the track unattended by any one she happened to be spotted by an engine driver who was shunting a railway engine. He got her removed r from that scene to the district hospital, and then to a Medical College Hospital where she had to undergo a long period of hospitalisation. However, she c remained immovable forever.

Though she was unable to move by herself she was able to make two petitions before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 27.6.1997, in respect of the aforesaid two accidents. The Claims Ttibunal awarded a total runount of six

D lakhs of rupees with the regret that it could not award more due to the ceiling imposed by the statutory rules. However the Claims Tribunal directed interest to accrue on the amount al the rate of 15% per annum from "the date of default".

The Railways Department, mindless as it was, dragged the helpless lady

E to the High Court of Kerala before which the Administration filed an appeal challenging the award passed by tl1e Claims Tribunal only on the ground that the amount awarded was excessive according to law of the Administration's interpretation.

The misfortune spree which was haunting the unfortunate lady bnbbled F up once again when a Division Bench of the High Court had chosen to slash down substantially the compensation amount awarded to her, on the premise

~ that the amount granted by the Claims Tribunal ccnld not have been awarded as Ille disaster had not visited her after 1.11.1997. The Division Bench expressed the helplessness of law in helping the hapless female in her misery G of the superlative dimension.

Though her body was disabled dne to t'ie paraplegia afflicted consequent to the rupture of the spinal cord, and though she became limbless in a major measure, she collected morale to approach the apex Court to ask '- whether the limbs of law could be so stretched as to give th<; limbless girl __ H solace at least in the form of pecuniary compensation. We, therefore, heard

/ '

Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Rekha A ' Pandey, learned counsel for tl1e Railway Administration.

'TI1cre is no dispute on tl1e factual position of which the following are some more details. Rathi menon lost her father earlier, and her mother became a widow. She passed her degree in conunerce and secured a job in Bangalore.

In her early twenties she was in search of better career prospects and it earned B some response. She was called for an interview at Triehur. It was that trip which turned out the most cursed one in her life. On her way back to Bangalore on 3.9.1996 she boarded the Island Express (bonnd for Bangalore) at 8.00 p.m. from Palakkad Railway Station. After the train started moving and when it collected momentum her ill-luck prompted her to have a face C wash for which she moved to the wash basin situated next to the door of the train. While washing her face the train jerked violently at a turning and in that impact she was thrown ont of the train. What happened thereafter has " been summarized earlier and cannot be repeated over again.

As the above facts are not disputed by the Railway Administration D appellant was relieved of the burden to prove those facts averred in her claim petition. TI1us, the only question which remained for the Clairns 'Tribunal to decide was regarding the amount of compensation payable to her. No\V t11e only question remaining is whether the High Court was so helpless that learned Judges could not confirm the amount awarded to her by the Claims E Tribnnal.

Appellant's claim for the compensation was based on Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short "the Act"). The said Section itself was introduced as per Railway (Amendment) Act 28 of I 994. The Section provided for av.arding compensation to victims of any "untoward incident" which occurs in the course of woring of a railway. The expression "untoward incident" was alien to Railways Act before Parliament inse11ed such m1 expression in the statute as per the Amendment Act 28 of 1994. Prior to it the Railways could have granted compensation only to the victims of "accident." As the definition of accident in !he Act did not embrace instances of other types of disasters which frequently happened during train journeys, the Parliament in its wisdom, decided to insert a new category of disasters, both manmade and otheiwise, to be the causes of action for claiming compensation.

It was in compliance of the aforesaid intention of the Parliament that

the category "nntoward incidenf' was included by defining its contours in H

A Section 123 of the Act. The Sections consists of two segments. In the first

segment acts such as terrorists acts, riotous attacks, robbe1y and decoity which f visit the passengers in the train as well as those who wait within the precincts of Railway Station are included. In the second segment, which is the relevant patt for the purpose of this case, is included "the accidental falling of any passenger from a train canying passengers."

Now we have to see Section 124A which is the provision imposing liability on the Railway Administration to pay compensation to the victims of untoward incidents. Its proviso excludes from its purview persons who committed or attempted to commit suicide, persons who inflicted injury by self, and those who committed criminal acts or acts done in a state of intoxication or insanity and also the cases affected by any natmal cause of disease etc. After excluding such persons aud cases, Section 124A can be read thus:

"When in the course of working a railway, ar1 untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the patt of tl1e railway administration such as would entitle a passenger, who has been injmed or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed, to maintain aJ.I action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by tl1e death of, or injmy to a passenger as a result of such untoward incident."

The liability of the Railway Administration in such a case would be to pay compensation, but the extent of such compensation is "as may be prescribed" which means prescribed by the rules made under the Act. Section

129 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make such rules.

The Railway Accident Compensation Rules 1990 (for short the Rules) were made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred G on it by Section 129 of the Act. Rule 3(1) says that the ainount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be as specified in the Schedule. The Rules as well as the Schedule were amended with effect from 1.11.1997. After tl1e ainendment Rule 3(2) reads thus:

"The amount of compensation payable for an injmy not specified in H Patt II or Patt III of the Schedule but which in the opinion of the

r '

RATHI MENON v. U.0.!. [THOMAS, J.] 371

claims Tribunal, is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do A work, shall be Rupees four lakhs."

Item No.2 of Part III of the Schedule relates to "amputation below shoulder with stump less than 8 from tip of acromion" for which an amount of Rs.3.20 lakhs is shown as the compensation.

Item 20 in Part III of the Schedule relates to "amputation below lu-i.ee with stump exceedin~ three and a half inch but not exceeding five inches", for which an amount of Rupees two lakhs is shown as compensation.

Before the said amendment of the Rules and the Schedule which came into effect on 1.11.1997 the above amounts were respectively two lakhs (instead of rupees four lakhs) and 1.40 lakhs (instead of 3.20 lakhs) and one lakh (instead of two lakhs). Such amounts were revised by the Central Government in 1990. The revision of the rates was made after 8 years and

• thus the new rates were incorporated by amending the Schedule.

Learned judges of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, for reaching the conclusion that appellant is not entitled to the amount indicated in the Rules as they stand now on account of the fact that the accident happened prior to 1.11.1997, considered among other things the effect of Section 126 of the Act. That Section enables an applicant to claim interim relief. Sub-section (2) of that section empowers the Claims Tribunal to pay to the applicant who has sustained the injury "snch sum as it considers reasonable for affording such relief, so however, that the sum paid shall not exceed the amount of compensation payable at such rates as may be prescribed." The Division Bench thereafter concluded thus:

"The wording of sub-section (2) of Section 126 would show that the liability is saddled as soon as the accident happens, not when the quantum is determined. The wording of Section 124 and 124A also would clearly show that the liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation arises as soon as the accident or untoward incident, as the case may be, happens. But the quanturn of compensation is to be as prescribed. Prescription is under the Rules. Therefore, it is clear that the liability to pay compensation is to the extent prescribed under the Rules in force at the time of tl1e accident or the untoward incident, as the case may be."

It was on the above premise that the Division Bench of the High Court slashed down the compensation amount considerably from what the Claims Tribunal awarded. In our perception the provision for payment of inte1im relief indicated in Section 126 of the Act has no utility for dec; ing as to what should be the total amount of compcnsatio11 payable to the injured or

other claimant. The right of the injured to claim compensation as wen as the liability of the Railway Administration are both reposed in Section !24A of the Act. The right is to maintain an action and recover the damages. "J11e liability is to "pay compensation to snch extent as may be prescribed."

The collocation of the words "as may be prescribed" in Section 124A C of the Act is to be understood as to mean "as may be prescribed from time to time". The relevance of the date of untoward incident is that the right to claim compensation from the Railway Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. The statute did not fix the amount of compensation, . but left it to be determined by the Central Government from time to time by

means of rules. This delegation to the Central Govermnent indicates that it was difficult for the Parliament to fix the amount because compensation an1ount is a varying phenomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous positio'l to ascertain what would be the just and reasonable compensation in respect of a myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into account very many factors. Whal the legislature wanted was that the victim of the accident must be paid compensation and the amount must represent a reality which means the amount should he fair and reasonable compensation. Govemment have the better wherewithals to ascertain and fix such amount. It is for the said reason that the Parliament left it to the Government to discharge that function. Sections 124 and 124A of the Act speak the same language that "the Railway Administration shal! be liable to pay compensation". As pointed above, it is the liability of the Railway Administration to "pay compensation to such extec.t as may be prescribed". Hence the time of ordering payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of the compensation which is prescribed by tl1e rules to be disbursed to the claimant.

In this context a reference to Section 129 of the Act appears useful.

The Central Government is empowered by the said provision to make rules

by_ notification "to carry out the purposes of this chapter". It is evident that one of the purposes of this chapter is that the injured victims in railway accidents and rmtoward incidents must get compensation. Though the word "compensation" is not defined in the Act or in the Rules it is the giving of

r '

...

RATHI MENON v. U.0.1. [THOMAS, J.] 373

an equivalent or substitute of equivalent value. In Black's Law Dictionary, "'compensation" is shown as "equivalent in money for a loss sustained; or giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; or recompense in value for some loss, injury or service especially when it is given by statute". It means when you pay the compensation in terms of money it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent value.

In this context we may look at Section 128(1) also. It says that the right of any person to chum compensation before the Claims Tribunal as indicated in Section 124 or 124A shall not affect the right of any such person t0 recover compensation payable under any other law for the time being in force. But there is an interdict that no person shall be entitled to claim compensation for more than once in respect of the same accident. Tiiis means that the party has two alternatives, one is to avail himself of his civil remedy to claim compensation based on common law or any other statutory provision, and t11e otl1er is to apply before the Claims Tribunal under Section 124 or 124A of the Act. As he cannot avail himself of both the remedies he has to choose one between the two. The provisions in Chapter Xlll of the Act are intended to provide a speedier remedy to the victims of accident and untoward incidents. If he were to choose the latter that does not mean that he should be prepared to get a lesser amount. He is given the assurance by the legislature that Central Govemment is saddled with the task of prescribing fair and just compensation in the rules from time to time. The provisions are not intended to give a gain to the Railway Administration but they are meant to afford just and reasonable compensation to the victims in a speedier measure. If a person files a suit, the amount of compensation will depend upon what the court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence when he goes before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation the determination of the amount should be as on the date of

such determination.

The asinine consequence of accepting the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the High Court can be demonstrated through an illustration. If a person sustained injury as described in Rules 3(2) of the Rules, in an accident in a train on 31.10.1997, and another person sustains the same kind of injury in another accident in a train tl1e next day i.e. 1.11.1997, when both persons made separate applications before the same Claims Tribunal for compensation, the Tribunal can award Rs.2 lak.'ls only in the first case and Rs. 4 lakhs in the second case. What a woeful discrimination, if not a

A glaringly unfair differentiation. See the interval between the two accidents of identical features. It was only a few hours, but the difference in the compensation amount is enormously high. Any court should avert an interpretation which would lead to such a manifestly absmd fall out, unless the comt is compelled otherwise by any mandatory provision.

B Why the Central Government decided to make such a vast variation in the amount of compensation while exercising the powers _c01Jerred by Section 129 of the Act. It cannot be conceived that the Government wanted to make a discrimination between those victims who suffered the accident prior to

1.11.1997 and those who suffered tl1e identical injury in a similar accident C on or after that date. The raison d'etre for making such variation is easily discernible. The Central Government wanted to update the compensation amount. Rupee value is not an unchanging unit in the monitory system.

Students of economic history know that currency value remained static before the Second World War. But the post World War II witnessed the new

phenomenon of vast fluctuations in money value of currency notes in circulation in each nation. When the U.S. Dollar has registered a steep upward rise, currencies in many other countries made do\vnward &lip. \\'hat was the value of one Hundred rnpees twenty years ago is vastly different from what it is today. This substantial change has caused its impact on the cost of living also.

The Central Government while changing the figure in the compensation Y amount after an interval of a decade was only influenced by the desire to update the money vaiue of the compensation. In other words, wh"t you were to pay ten years ago to one person cannot be the same if it is paid today in the same figure of currency notes. It is for the purpose of meeting the reality F that Central Government changed the figures.

The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence. is he to get the compensation in tenns of the rnoney value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing t11e application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Comts could take up such an appeal only after.the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many

.., .

RATII! MENON" U.0.1. [THOMAS, J.] 375

years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in te1ms of the figure A indicated on the date of the accident.

From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation.

Learned Judges of the Division Bench in the High Court refen-ed to the decisions of this Court in Pralap Narain Singh Dea v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr., [1976] 1 SCC 289, PA. Narayanan v. Union of India and Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 67 and Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh, [1998] 9 SCC 134,

i~ order to gain support for the conclusion an-ived at in the impugned judgment. Among them PA. Narayanan v. Union of India arose from a writ petition filed for compensation in respect of the death of claimant's wife in a railway accident which happened on 3.1.1981. The High Court dismissed the w1it petition against the claimant and approached this Court by special leave. A plea was made that compensation could be granted in accordance with the rates prescribed by the rules under Railways Act, 1989. The counsel for the Railway Administration disputed the said contention on the ground that the said Act c.annot have any rctospective operation. A two-Judge Bench of this Court (Dr. A.S. Anand, as His Lordship then was, and S. Rajendra Babu, J) acceded to the said plea and granted a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as

compensation, which is tl1e suni prescribed in the Rules then in force, despite E -.: the fact that the Act itself came into force only in 1990. The said decision, instead of supporting the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court, is more in support of the approach we have made above.

In the other two decisions refen-ed to by the Division llench the claims made under tl1e Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (W.C. Act, for short) were the subject matter. In Pratap Narain Singh Dea (supra) the claimant workman sustained injuries and one of his anns was amputated in the course of his employment on 6.7.1968, the Commissioner under the Act passed an order on 6.5.1969 directing the employer to pay cornpensation together with penalty and interest for delayed payment. 'foe omployer challenged the said order before the High Court contending that penalty and interest could not be awarded as his liability to pay had arisen only when the Commissioner passed the order and not earlier. The High Court repelled such a contention.

Against this the employer approached this Court by special leave. A four-

Judge Bench of this Court held thus: "The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as ti1e aforesaid personal injury was caused

to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of a.rid in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under. Section 19." On the aforesaid order this Court farther held that the Commissioner. lder the Act was fully justified iu making the order for payment of interest' and penalty. In Maglzar Singh v. Jashwant Singh (supra) the claim made m1der the W . .C. Act was dealt with and the findings or the observations therein have no bearing on the question involved in his appeal.

The scheme of the provision under the W.C. Act is materially different from the scheme indicated in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act. In the former, C compensation payable is fixed in the Act itself through the schedule incorporated tl1ereto. Section 4 of the W.C. Act shows that such compensation is to be linked with the monthly wages of the workman concerned. It also provides tliat the liability to pay compensation on the employer would a.rise not when the Commissioner passes tl1e order but on the date of sustaining

the injury itself. A provision is made in Section 4A of W.C. Act that where any employer is in default of paying tl1e compensation due within one month tl1e Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay not only interest but in appropriate cases a penalty ranging up to 50% of the amount payable. The said scheme cannot be equated with the scheme in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, as the principles involved have differences.

Shri K. Sukmnaran, learned senior counsel relied on the decision of another Division Bench of tlle Kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Asokan, [1997] l Kerala Law Times 608, in which a decision of this Court is quoted. That decision of this Court is dated 6.11.1996, rendered by a two-Judge Bench (Kuldip Singh and Saghir Ahmad, JJ) of this F Court (C.A. Nos.16904-09 of 1996). Later we came across that the said decision is reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K. Neelakandan and Ors., [1999] (8) SCC 256. The said decision was also under the W.C.

Act. This is what the two-Judge Bench said:

"We are finally determining the rights of the wo:kmen today. The Act is a special legislation for the benefit of the labour. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act we are of the view that the only interpretation which can be given to the amendment is that if any benefit is conferred on the workmen and tl1e said benefit is available on the date when the case is finally adjudicated, the said benefit should be extended to the workmen."

...

.;,'

...

A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kerala Stale Electricity Board A and Anr. v. Valsala K and Anr., [1999] 8 SCC 254 has referred to the aforesaid decision and held that it was wrongly decided in view of the four- Judge Bench decision of this Court in Pralap Narain Singh Deo (supra) .

Nonetheless, in appropriate cases the principle of taking advantage of the beneficial legislation, subsequently enacted, is not dissented from by the B larger Bench.

In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside tl1e impugned judgment of the High Court. We direct the Railway Administration to pay the amount awarded by tl1e Claims Tribunal w the appellant (if not already paid) within three months from today together with interest at the rate of 12% per C annum from 27.6.1997 (tl1e dale of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal).

V.S.S .

Appeals allowed.