Doli Durgamma Vs Union of India

Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act aggrieved by the Judgment dated 30-04-2018 in OA ll (U) No.321 of 2015 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad

¶10

Between:

¶11

Doli Durgamma, W/o late Sri D. Yakaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: House wife, r/o 36/4/6, Housing Board colony, Bandlaguda, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

Doli Saraiah, s/o late Sri D Yakaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Safety Officer (Security) Kamineni Hospital, r/o H.No. Plot No.36/4/6, Housing Board colony, Bandalguda, Hayathnagar Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

Doli Rama Murthy, s/o late D. Yakaiah, aged about 48 years, Occ: employee in ACC cement factory, Mancherial, rlo H.No.57l1 17, RK..1 area, Ramakrishnapur, [Vlandal Mandamarri, District Adilabad.

¶14

4.^poli Srinivas, s/o Sri D. Yakaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ: Auto driver, r/o H.No.20-473, Chaitanya nagar, A- Zone, Ramakrishnapur, Mandal Mandamarri, District Adilabad.

¶15

...Appellants/Appl icants

¶16

AND

¶17

The Union Of lndia, rep by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, at Secunderabad.

¶18

...RespondenUrespondent

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. S. Chandra Sekhar

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Sanjeev, SC FOR RAILWAYS

¶21

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

1

¶23

cm._717_2018 N8(, J

¶24

THE, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGT]SH BHEEMAPAKA

¶25

(IIVIL NITSCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.7l7 of 2018

¶26

JI.IDGNIENI':

¶27

The appellants (who are the wife and children olthe deceased D. Yakaiah) fited a Claim Petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in O.A.tl (U) No.32 I of 20 I 5, under Section 124-A olthe Indian Railways Act, 1989, secking compcnsation of Rs.4,00,000 with interest, for the death of the deceased irr an untor.vard incident while he was boarding the train, i.e., Ramagiri Passenger train, ploceeding lrom Ravindrakani to Mancherial, on 20.06.20 15. .l'he Tribunal. after appreciating the oral evidence of AW-1, and the documents Exhibits Al to A.9 adduced on behalf of the applicants; and the documentary evidence Exhibit Rl (Report of the Divisional Railway Manager) adduced on behalfofthe Railways, held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that he accidentally fell while boarding the train and slipped in between the train and platform and died due to cutting offof his legs in the accident.

¶28

l'.1 f he l'ribunal fuither considered that the Govemment of India notified the Revised Compensation Rules, vide GSR I165 (E) dated 22.12.2016, elfective 01.01.2017. and also in view of the^judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Rathi Menon vs. [Jnion of Indiat, and held that the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation and accordingly awarded Rs.8,00,000 rvith interest at 6ok per annum. However, the Tribunal observed that since the issues were framed on 04.05.201 7, and that the claimants filed evidence only on 02.0 I .2018, and that there is delay on the part of claimants in completing their evidence; and the Tribunal therefore awarded interest at 6Vo per annum from 02.01 .2018 until the date oforder and thereafter 9%o interest from the date ofthe

\

t 2001AC.' 72

2

crna_717_2018^{--</sup> NBK, J}

¶33

order to the date ofactual payment. Aggrieved by the order ofthe Tribunal, the claimants filed this appeal essentially contending that the Tribunal ought to have followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various^judgments and also in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi vs. Ilnion of lndia2.

¶34

Heard Mr. S. Chandra Sekhar. learned counsel lor the petitioner; and leamed Standing Counsel lbr respondent-Railways. Perused the record.

¶35

The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to interest from a prior date than the one awarded by the Tribunal.

¶36

[n this connection, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court Thazhanthe Purayil Sarabi^(supra) held that "interest" is essentially a "compensation for the time value of money", as the claimants are being deprived of the use of the sum which is due but not paid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that awarding of interest is not a punitive measure against the respondent-authorities, but only compensatory, so as to account lor the time delay.that occasioncd in payment of the actual compensation. Further, in Thazhanthe Purayil Sarabi (supra), it was directed that the interest should be at 6% simple interest per annum from the date of the application till the date ofthe award, and after that, at 9o/o from the date of the award till actual payment.

¶37

However, in Union of India vs. Rina DevP. the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically framed an issue with regard to the rate of interest payable, in view ofthe earlier decision in Thazhanthe Purayil Sarabi (supra); and the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the fbrmula in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (i.e. 60/o interest from date of application till arvard, and 9oh thereafter) is not to be mechanically applied in all cases. F'urther, in Rina Devr (supra), the Hon'ble

¶38

'^1zoosl ryt(c^ztz

¶39

, (2019)3 SCC 572

¶40

)

¶41

cma_717_2O18 NBK, ]

¶42

Supreme Court clarified that the compensation applicable as on the date of accident has to be gmnted, along with reasonable interest based on the facts of the case. Further, in Rina Devi^(supra), it was held as follows:

¶43

'' 18. ... We cu'e ol lhe it,\1 thot luy, in the prcsenl conlext should be tdken to ht tlut rhe liubilin will .L(rue ott the dalc of the uccident urul the umount uppli<uble us ott lhat dolL,v ill bc the umount racovcrable but the cluimont v,ill get inlarest.fi'on the date of accident till the paymen! at .\uch rate as may be c'ortsidered iust und -/dir li'om lime to lime. ln this context, rate of interest ctpplicable in mitor acticlent claim cases can be held to be reasonable and /itir.^{(.)nceconc(ptof intcre.st ha.y beenintroduced, principles of the ll'orkmen} (-ompansation .lL't can (ertainb, he applied and judgment of the.fbur-Judge BenL'h in Pruttp ,Yaraitt Singh Deo (1976) I SCC 289 will .fully apply. ll:hcrt,vcr it is.linnd that the revised amount oJ applicable compensatbn as on tht' Llale of'avunl of thc Trihunal is less than the pre.scribed amount of comptnsaliotl u\ on tht: Llate o/'accidenl with intcrest, higher of the two anlounls ought to he au,ortlcd on the principle of henefcial legislation.^"

¶44

In the instant case, the accident occurred on 20.06.2015, and relevant guidelines of the Central Govemment with regard to compensation specity the compensation payable was Rs.4,00,000. The guidelines were revised by enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,00,000 under GSR l165 (E) dated 22.12.2016, which came into force from 01.01.2017, i.e., after the date of accident. Therefore. in view of the judgment in Rina Devi (supra) though the compensation as applicable as on the date of accident is liable to be paid, however, it was also clarifled that in case the compensation payable has been enhanced by the date of passing of the Award, the claimants will be entitled to the higher compensation and the higher compensation has to be paid. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.8,00,000 as compensation to the claimants.

¶45

\

¶46

With regard to the date of payment of interest - whether it is to be from the date of accident, or the date of filing of claim petition, and whether some portion ol interest can be denied, and whether different interest rates can be paid based on the stages ad.judication, namely, date ofclaim petition, date ofadducing of evidence by the parties, date of passing ofAward, date of actual payment etc.,

¶47

\ \

¶48

4

¶49

c.r],z 717 2018 NB(, ]

¶50

it may be noted that in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments involving the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including Sarla Yerma v.s. Delhi Transport Corporationa and several^judgments following National Insurance Compuny Ltd.. vs. Pranay Sethi'. has consistently adopted the date of filing ol claim petition for the purposes of awarding compensation and also lor awarding of interest. Further, it can be seen that in most ofthe cases, the interest rate was also unilorm frorn the date of claim petition to the date of actual payment. without any dift-erentiation based on intermediary stage like date of framing issues, date of evidence adduced by parties, date of passing ofAward etc.

¶51

In the instant case, the occurrence of accident on 20.06-2015, and the death ol the deceased in the accident arc not in dispute. The claimants filed the claim petition on 26.10.2015. Merely because the Tribunal tiamed the issues in 2017, and the claimants produced their evidence in 201 8, the Tribunal cannot deny interest to the Claimants from 201 5 to 2018.

¶52

In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to rnodi! the irnpugned Judgment insofar as the date from which interest is liabte to be paid by the respondent-Railways and also the rate at which interest is to be paid.

¶53

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by aflirming the compensation of Rs.8,00,000 as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the respondent-Railways shall pay interest at 60/o per annum unifbnnly from the date olclaim petition to the date of actual payment of compensation, keeping in view the rationale in Sarla Verma^(supra). Miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed

¶54

SD/- M.RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR ultu)6 se+tL\ e [r"t+) tt sc.- [r"t+) tt sc.- tt sc.- sc.- 6g0 //TRUE COPY//

¶55

e [r"t+) tt sc.- [r"t+) tt sc.- tt sc.- sc.- 6g0

4

5 TION OFFICER

To,

1 The Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderaba h records, if any) 2 One CC to Mr. S. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K. Sanjeev, SC FOR RAILWAYSIOPUCI Two CD Copies

b--^1,PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110312025

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.717 ot 2018

( o A'l HE S
Il'J
i 0 5 rr1 'ill.fr
,9-
.ty
*
DATC