Allowed

Shri Shambhu Bind @ Shambhu v. The Union of India

Patna HC15 Dec 2022MA/1055/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a miscellaneous appeal, directing the Union of India to release the railway compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal immediately via RTGS within 60 days by citing precedents favoring immediate disbursement. Failure to comply would attract additional cost.

What did the court decide?

Released of the judgment, monetary direction to pay within 60 days, and threat of 50,000 in additional cost for default.

Shri Shambhu Bind @ Shambhu Vs The Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.1055 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Shri Shambhu Bind @ Shambhu S/o Shri Ram Bali BInd Resident of VillageBhatauli, PO jamurna, PS Mohania, Distt. Kaimur (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the General Managar, North Central Railway, Allahabad.

¶7

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Kanak Verma, C.G.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-12-2022

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶9

Ms. Kanak Verma who represents the Railways.

¶10

The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2019 passed in Case No. OA(IIa)00036/2017 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (henceforth for short 'the Tribunal) by which after holding that he has received injury in his leg, although he failed to produce any ticket to show his bonafide, 'the Tribunal' hold that in view of the affidavit made by him, he is entitled to relief and accordingly directed the Railways to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- within a period of three months failing which he will be entitled to 9 per cent simple interest.

¶11

Patna High Court MA No.1055 of 2019 dt.15-12-2022 2/7

¶12

'The Tribunal' further directed bifurcation

¶13

of the amount inasmuch as the same was to be paid in 72 equal instalments of Rs. 3000/- through the Additional Registrar, Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna in whose account the entire amount will be kept alongwith interest.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 'the Tribunal' erred in providing relief only for the leg injury ignoring the fact that he had also received head injury. However, he failed to provide details about severity of the injury that the appellant received following the accident.

¶15

He brought the attention of this Court to the document that is part of the Lower Court Record, the discharged slip of GSVM Medical College, Kanpur.

¶16

This Court took note of medical record of head injury wherein it has been observed that the patient was examined thoroughly, properly investigated and managed conservatively with IVF, anti-boitic, analgesics and other symptomatic drugs. Now the patient is being discharged on persistent request of the patient's attendant with proper advice and regular follow-up.

¶17

As per the discharged slip, the date of admission is 10.7.2011 and the date of discharge is 12.7.2011

¶18

Patna High Court MA No.1055 of 2019 dt.15-12-2022 3/7

¶19

and from the advice for taking anti-biotic and analgesics, it is clear that although there was some injury on his head, there was no severity for which he is claiming extra compensation.

¶20

In the aforesaid background, 'the Tribunal' was absolutely justified in granting the compensation as has been recorded in its order dated 1.10.2019 in Case No. OA(IIa)00036/2017. The said claim of the appellant is fit to be rejected.

¶21

So far as the instalment part is concerned, there is judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 08.04.2021 in C.R. No.3730 of 2019 in the case of Anju & Ors. vs. Union of India and analogous cases in which the learned Single Judge has observed as follows:

¶22

“Section 23 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie from every order, not being an interlocutory order, of the Claims Tribunal, having jurisdiction over the place where the Bench is located. In the present revision petition, the petitioners do not challenge the very award itself or its insufficiency over grant of compensation to them. What is there in the present controversy is the denial by the Tribunal of

¶23

Patna High Court MA No.1055 of 2019 dt.15-12-2022

¶24

4/7

¶25

disbursing the compensation so awarded immediately to the claimants, heirs of the deceased. The very wording of Section 23 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie against final order and not an interlocutory order. The claim petitions have been finally disposed off and adjudicated and it is the very rider that has been placed therein that the claimants shall not get money immediately which is subject matter of anguish for the petitioners. One needs to be aware of the fact that every order in a suit cannot be regarded as a decided. Since the proceedings have earlier culminated into passing of award which has been accepted by the petitioners and has become final and it is the very rider therein which needs to be adjudicated. More-so, the very aim and object of award of compensation is based on compassion for the betterment of the dependents and cannot so strictly be construed so as to defeat the very purpose of the award of compensation. The Tribunal had been magnanimous to award a meager

¶26

Patna High Court MA No.1055 of 2019 dt.15-12-2022

¶27

5/7

¶28

compensation to the claimants which has not been challenged nor disputed. The part of the order paying the amount of compensation by way of FDRs is a stipulation which has serious ramifications on the future of the claimants. Some of the claimants are already senior citizens while the then minors have attained the majority, the widows who have to pull through their life without their bread earners certainly requires such compensation to assuage their feelings of wrong done and help them tide over the hard days in running the household and upbringing their children and so the old parents, the dependents who need money for their upkeep as well as nursing of ill health. So this Court in view of the previous views of this Court in Amarjeet Singh and another vs. Union of India, Manjider Singh vs. Union of India, Sudesh Kumari vs. Union of India, Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, Sahjadi Khatoon and others vs. Union of India (supra) and feels that the Courts should not fall prey to such technical issues and it would be in furtherance of law

¶29

Patna High Court MA No.1055 of 2019 dt.15-12-2022 6/7

¶30

and its very purpose, if the Court allows the present petitions and direct the concerned Banks to immediately release the amount along with interest that has accumulated thereon over a period of time to the legitimate claimants as per their share in the award amount upon proper identification as per rules. All the revision petitions stand allowed accordingly.”

¶31

The said order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was also stamped by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (c) No. 20206-2021 of 2021 in the case of Union of India Vs. Anju which was heard and dismissed on 4.01.2022.

¶32

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the amount that the appellant is entitled to as directed by 'the Tribunal', shall be released to him forthwith within a period of 60 days directly in his Bank account through RTGS process.

¶33

It has been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite the order passed on 01.10.2019, no compensation amount has been released to him.

¶34

Taking into account the aforesaid observation, if correct, in cash of failure of the Railways to clear the amount within a period of 60 days from today, the appellant shall be

¶35

Patna High Court MA No.1055 of 2019 dt.15-12-2022 7/7

¶36

entitled for additional Rs. 50,000/- as cost.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the M.A. No.

¶38

1055 of 2019 is disposed of.

¶39

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶40

Ravi/-

¶41

AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	17.12.2022
Transmission Date	NA

Shri Shambhu Bind @ Shambhu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shambhu Bind @ Shambhu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Of India Through The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata Vs Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta

The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rohtas Vs Rashid Khatoon and Ors.

Kamta Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Kumar Srivastava and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Prem Nath Chaubey Vs Shalini Pathak

Binod Sahni Vs the State of Bihar