Disposed

Union of India Owning v. R. Beena

Madras HC19 Jun 2023REV.APPL/68/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought review of an order awarding compensation for a railway accident. The claim was that a 2016 amendment to compensation rules raised the limit to Rs. 8 lakhs. The Court disposed of the application, finding no basis for review based on the specific facts regarding the accident date and earlier legal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Review Application disposed of without costs; no fresh order issued.

Union of India Owning Vs R. Beena — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Rev. Appl. No. 68 of 2022 against C.M.A.No.780 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Rev. Appl. No. 68 of 2022 against C.M.A. No. 780 of 2016

¶7

Union of India owning Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai-600 003 represented by its General Manager ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs.R.Beena 2. Mr. K.R.Mariappan 3. Mrs.M.Selvi

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of

¶12

C.P.C. r/w 114 of Civil Procedure Code, against the order of this Hon'ble

¶13

Court dated 31.03.2021 in C.M.A.No.780 of 2016.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.T.P.Savitha For Respondents : Mr.T.Rajamohan

¶15

1/5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Rev. Appl. No. 68 of 2022 against C.M.A.No.780 of 2016

¶19

The petitioner had filed this Review Application to review the order passed by this court submitting that as per new amendment in Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) or already the deposited amount along with nominal interest, whichever is higher, but restricted to Rs.8,00,000/-. Hence, the order is to be reviewed and prayed to delete the interest portion in para 11 of the order and to issue fresh copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶20

On considering submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, as per new amendment in Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, earlier order passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.780 of 2016 in paragraphs 11 and 12, as such is liable to be reviewed as follows :-

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

“Para 11 :-

¶24

Rev. Appl. No. 68 of 2022 against C.M.A.No.780 of 2016

¶25

As per the notification dated 22.12.2016 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary – Ministry of Railways (Railway), amendments were brought to Rule 3 of Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 by inserting sub-rule (2), as per the amendment, the second proviso to Subrule (3) was amended by substituting the words “four lakhs” into “eight lakhs”. Thus, as per the amendment a victim of untoward railway accident is entitled for a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/(Rupees eight lakhs only) from 01.01.2017. In this case, the accident occurred before 01.01.2017. Therefore, as per new amendment in Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the respondents/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and the petitioner is directed to deposit award amount of Rs.8,00,000/(Rupees eight lakhs only) within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order or already the deposited

¶26

3/5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Rev. Appl. No. 68 of 2022 against C.M.A.No.780 of 2016

¶29

amount with nominal interest whichever is higher, but not exceeding a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶30

Para 12

¶31

The claimants/legal representatives of the deceased are permitted

¶32

to withdraw their respective shares of compensation by filing an appropriate application and the payments are to be made through RTGS.”

¶33

Accordingly, this Review Application stands disposed of. No costs.

19.06.2023

rpp

4/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Rev. Appl. No. 68 of 2022 against C.M.A.No.780 of 2016

¶39

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶40

rpp

¶41

Rev. Appl. No. 68 of 2022 against C.M.A.No.780 of 2016

¶42

19.06.2023

¶43

5/5

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Union of India Owning v. R. Beena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Owning v. R. Beena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.B.Karthik Vs M. Muthiah Sthapathi

R.Rajeswari Vs B.Padmanabhan

G. Ramakrishnama Naidu Vs S.P.S. Veera Reddy

Sellamuthu Vs Nirmala

Sellamuthu and Another Vs Nirmala

Nanjammal (Died) Vs Murugesan