Amrendra Bahadur Singh and Another Vs Union of India Thru. G.M. Northern Railway N. Delhi

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8778

¶2

AFR

¶3

Court No. - 4

¶4

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 44 of 2021

¶5

Appellant :- Amrendra Bahadur Singh And Another Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. G.M. Northern Railway N. Delhi

¶6

Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- Vijay Pratap Singh,Amit Sharma,Harsha Yadav

¶7

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Pradeep Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Harsha Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶9

The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that interest has been awarded from the date of award, whereas it should have been awarded from the date of incident as per judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi ; Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2018 .

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants relying on the judgement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.3730 of 2019 (O&M); Anju and others versus Union of India and other connected revisions further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly and illegally directed to make the payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in installments and the total amount is liable to be released. Therefore, the impugned judgement and award is liable to be modified accordingly.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

¶12

the interest has been awarded in accordance with the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi because the amount of compensation if enhanced after the incident can be awarded after calculating the interest on the old entitlement of compensation, if the same is higher on the date of award along with interest and accordingly the compensation and the interest has been awarded, therefore, there is no illegality or error in the impugned judgement and award.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that there is no ground for release of total amount of compensation and the scheme has been framed in pursuance of a judgement passed by the Delhi High Court, therefore, unless the ground is taken and the cause is shown, the appellant is not entitled for release of total amount together.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

¶15

The alleged untoward incident happened on 15.06.2015, in regard to which the claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which has been allowed by means of impugned judgement and award dated 18.10.2019 passed in Case No.OA/II/U/995/15 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The amount of compensation of Rs.4 lakhs at the time of accident was enhanced to Rs.8 lakhs by means of the amendment in Part-I of the Schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 vide G.S.R. 1165 (E) dated 22.12.2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) has concluded that the 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

¶16

pattern as in accident claim cases and 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 for higher of the two amounts. Relevant paragraph 15.4 of the aforesaid judgement is extracted herein-below:

¶17

"15.4 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."

¶18

In view of above, the compensation is to be calculated on the date of award considering the compensation applicable on the date of accident and interest thereon as may be considered reasonable from time to time and after calculating the compensation applicable on the date of accident with the interest thereon upto the date of award and on comparing the same with the present applicable compensation, whichever is higher, the same would be the amount of compensation on the date of award, for which the claimant is entitled. Once the amount of compensation is to be determined in view of paragraph 15.4 of the aforesaid judgement of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) on the date of award, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that on the so determined amount of compensation, the interest should have been awarded from the date of accident, is misconceived and is not tenable because once the said amount of compensation accrues on the date of award after calculating as per procedure provided in the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest can be awarded only for the subsequent period from the date it accrues as the interest can not be awarded for the period prior to the date on which it accrues.

¶19

In the present case, learned Tribunal considered interest at the rate of 9% per annum as reasonable and after calculating with the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs applicable on the date of accident with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of accident upto the date of award, the Tribunal found that the enhanced compensation of Rs.8 lakhs is higher amount and accordingly held that the applicant shall be entitled for the compensation of Rs.8 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award till the date of actual payment. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in it.

¶20

So far as the judgement relied by learned counsel for the appellants, in the case of Anju and others versus Union of India and other connected revisions (supra), is concerned, the appellants have not taken any ground in appeal and shown that the appellant is in need of the whole money together. It is also to be noted that despite repeated asking to learned counsel for the appellant by the Court that if required, he may move an affidavit and application for amendment, which may be considered, learned counsel for the appellants declined to do so and insisted for disposal of appeal today itself. Thus the contention of learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived and not tenable.

¶21

This Court also does not find any illegality or error in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which has been considered in the judgement of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) and not enhanced.

¶22

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and award dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Case No.OA/II/U/995/15, which may call for any interference by this Court. The appeal has been filed on

¶23

misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶25

No order as to costs.

¶26

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Anupam S/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amrendra Bahadur Singh and Another v. Union of India Thru. G.M. Northern Railway N. Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrendra Bahadur Singh and Another v. Union of India Thru. G.M. Northern Railway N. Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheela Shukla Vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Thru. M.D. and 3 Others

Avinesh Chandra Srivastava vs Ajay Chauhan, Prin. Secy. Basic PWD Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Another

Ambrish Kumar Dixit vs Sri Deepak Kumar Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Thro. Its Regional Manager Vs Kallu S/O Ramdeen

M/S Data Technosys (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. Thru Director Devan Daljit Chopra Vs U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Thru Its M.D. and Ors.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Regional Manager Faizabad Vs Nagendra Tiwari and Another