Union of In of India v. Rina Devi
Case Details
FAO-6154-2018 (O& (O&M) 1 [223] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA FAO-6154 Date of De 6154-2018 (O&M) of Decision : 21.03.2025 Harpreet Si reet Singh Union of In n of India versus …Appellant ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present:
Legal Reasoning
, Chandigarh. There is no dispute wi ute with respect to t ct to the injury suffered by the claima claimant in an untoward incident. Th nt. The issue relate relates to absence of ticket and the cl the claimant being bona fide passeng assenger or not. [2] Counsel for the appellant has nt has referred to the affidavit of th t of the claimant be ant before the learned Tribunal where wherein he specifically claimed to hav to have boarded tra ded train after purchasing a valid ticke d ticket. He submits that the said tick id ticket was lost w lost while the claimant was being tak taken from the place of accident ident to hospital. F ital. Further reliance is being placed laced upon ration of law laid down b own by Supreme C eme Court in the case of ‘Union of In of India versus Rina Devi’, (2019) 2019) 3 Supreme C eme Court Cases 572. He thus, thus, submits that once the claima claimant discharged arged the initial onus by stating on on or before the learned Tribun Tribunal RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.26 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document regarding p ding purchase of valid ticket, onus sh shifted on the railways to rebut th ebut the FAO-6154-2018 (O& (O&M) 2 same. Rai . Railways having failed to produce oduce any cogent piece of evidence ence in rebuttal, lea ttal, learned Tribunal ought not to have have rejected the claim. [3] Counsel for the respondent ndent-UOI though submits that th that the claimant w ant was not found in possession of any of any valid ticket but admits that the at there is a specific pecific statement made by the claiman laimant before the learned Tribunal wi nal with respect to o purchase of journey ticket and et and the loss thereof and there is n re is no evidence le nce led by the railways to rebut the sa the same. [4] In view thereof, this Court ourt finds that the issue is square squarely covered by red by the ratio of law laid down in n in Rina Devi’s case (supra), where wherein Supreme C eme Court observed as under:- “15.4 Accordingly, we we conclude that compensation w n will be payable as applicable on e on the date of the accident wi t with interest as may be considered ered reasonable from time to time o me on the same pattern as in accide ccident claim cases. If the amount s unt so calculated is less than the am amount prescribed as on the date ate of the award of the Tribunal, t al, the claimant will be entitled led to higher of the two amounts. nts. This order will not affect th ct the awards which have already be dy become final and where limitatio itation for challenging such awards h rds has expired, this order will not b not by itself be a ground for condon ndonation of delay. Seeming confli onflict in Rathi Menon (supra) and and Kalandi Charan Sanhoo (supra supra) stands explained accordingly ingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgmen gment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Deo (supra) holds the field on th n the subject and squarely appl applies to the present situatio ation. Compensation as applicable o ble on the date of the accident has has to be given with reasonable int e interest and to give effect to th to the mandate of beneficial legislat islation, if compensation as provide ovided on the date of award of the T he Tribunal is higher than unrevise evised amount with interest, the high higher of the two amounts has to b s to be RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.26 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document given.” FAO-6154-2018 (O& (O&M) 3 [5]
Arguments
vocate Mr. S.R. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Pane for the respondent-UOI. r Panel Counsel *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] Challenge is to Award dated 2 ated 20.03.2018 passed by the Railwa Railway Claims Trib s Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chan
Decision
In view of the above, finding nding recorded by the learned Tribun Tribunal on Issue N sue No.1 cannot be sustained. The The same is ordered to be reverse eversed. Coming on ing on to the issue of quantum, as per per the Schedule, the injury suffere suffered by the claim e claimant falls in Item No.22 of the of the Schedule Part-II appended to th d to the Railway Ac ay Accidents and Untoward Incident cidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. [6] Keeping in view that the dat he date of accident is 11.01.2016, th 016, the claimant sh ant shall be entitled to an amount of unt of Rs.1,60,000/- along with intere interest @ 9% per per annum from the date of acciden ccident till the date of actual realizatio alization or Rs.3,20, s.3,20,000/-, whichever is higher. Rail r. Railway is granted 08 weeks’ time time to deposit the sit the amount. In case, the amount is unt is not deposited, they shall be liab be liable to pay an ay an interest @ 7.5% per annum nnum for the period as stated abo ove irrespective pective of the fact that the claimant aimant is entitled to compensation o ation of Rs.3,20,000 ,000/- without interest. [7] The claimant shall furnish the sh the requisite documents i.e. Aadha Aadhaar Card and and Bank details within 04 weeks befo ks before the learned Tribunal. [8] [9] Appeal stands allowed. All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands disposed of ed off. .2025 21.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.26 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document