Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Hon’ble Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Umesh Lalit and Justice Indira Banerjee sought the view of the Union of India in relation to a railway accident case. The Railway Tribunal had earlier held that it was an untoward accident and the victim was not eligible for the compensation in terms of section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989.
The victim’s name was Dasarath Yadav whose head collided with the post by the side of the track, and the tribunal held that the consequence occurred due to his own action. When the matter reached the ears of the High Court, the judicial bench was pleased to direct the Railways to pay Rs. 8,00,000 @ 9% Interest p.a. as compensation to the victim. The court held that the principle of strict liability would be attracted under section 124 of the Act, and the tribunal erred in its decision by rejecting compensation.
The Supreme Court, however, did not entirely accept the view of the High Court. The High Court had said that the interest is calculated on 8,00,000 which is an error considering the amendment. The Apex Court laid down the arithmetic by considering the circumstances before and after the amendment.The amount of compensation is to be calculated at a reasonable rate of interest, and where there is a difference between the amount of compensation so calculated and the amount prescribed as on the date of award, the victim shall be entitled to higher of these two amounts.
Hence, if the compensation is payable before the amendment, the amount shall concur with what is prescribed in the schedule and interest shall be calculated thereon. For instance, where there is death before the amendment, the basic figure would be Rs. 4,00,000, and on applying reasonable interest if the amount falls short of Rs. 8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000. If the calculation results in such amount exceeding Rs.8,00,000, the claimant would be entitled to such amount.
The Court appointed Advocate Brijender Chahar as amicus curiae in the case to assist the Court in relation to dealing with the safety of the Indian Railways, and he submitted the following:
The Additional Solicitor General agreed to deal with the issues concerning the railway's safety, and the court adjourned the matter for eight weeks.
86540
103860
630
114
59824