N. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr 12-4-2002 (12%)

http://JUDIS.NIC.
IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2661 of 2002
PETITIONER:
N. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/04/2002
BENCH:
R.P. Sethi & D.M. Dharmadhikari
JUDGMENT:
SETHI,J.
Leave granted.
Denying them the benefit of the amendment to the Railways
Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) rules, 1990 as amended
in 1997 and relying upon its earlier judgment in Union of India v.
Thankaraj [1999 (3) KLT 320], the High Court refused to enhance the
compensation for the death of P. Suresh Kumar in a train accident which
had occurred on 17.7.1997. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in
Rathi Menon v. Union of India [2001 (3) SCC 714] the appellants have
prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and for enhancement of
the compensation.
The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that
while travelling from Thiruvalla to Jamnagar in Train No.6334 on a valid
ticket issued by the Southern Railways, the deceased was accidentally
thrown out of the train on account of over-crowding near electric pillar
at Km.134/4-5 between Chakarapalli and Penukonda Railway Stations. As a
result of the fall, the deceased got injuries all over his body and
ultimately died. A case as Crime No.38 of 1997 was registered and
ultimately closed finding it as a case of accidental death. The
appellants thereafter prayed for the award of compensation of Rs.4 lakhs
which was disposed of by the Railway Claims Tribunal vide its judgment
dated 29th October, 1998 holding the appellants entitled to the payment
of Rs.2 lakhs by way of compensation for the untoward incident along
with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of default. In
the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court the order of the
Tribunal awarding compensation was upheld and the appellants held
entitled @ 12% per annum from 29.12.1997, the date of petition till
29.11.1998.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, we have no doubt in our mind that the claim of the appellants is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Rathi Menons case
(supra) wherein while setting aside the similar judgment of the Kerala
High Court, it was held:
"The asinine consequence of accepting the interpretation
placed by the Division Bench of the High Court can be
demonstrated through an illustration. If a person sustained
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
injury as described in Rule 3(2) of the Rules, in an
accident in a train on 30.10.1997, and another person
sustains the same kind of injury in another accident in a
train the next day i.e. 1.11.1997, when both persons made
separate applications before the same Claims Tribunal for
compensation, the Tribunal can award Rs.2 lakhs only in the
first case and Rs.4 lakhs in the second case. What a woeful
discrimination, if not a glaringly unfair differentiation.
See the interval between the two accidents of identical
features. It was only a few hours, but the difference in
the compensation amount is enormously high. any court
should avert an interpretation which would lead to such a
manifestly absurd fallout, unless the court is compelled
otherwise by any mandatory provision.
Why the Central Government decided to make such a vast
variation in the amount of compensation while exercising the
powers conferred by Section 129 of the Act? It cannot be
conceived that the Government wanted to make a
discrimination between those victims who suffered an injury
in an accident prior to 1.11.1997 and those who suffered an
identical injury in a similar accident on or after that
date. The raison detre for making such variation is easily
discernible. the Central Government wanted to update the
compensation amount. Rupee value is not an unchanging unit
in the monetary system. Students of economic history know
that currency value remained static before the Second World
War. But the post-World War II witnessed the new phenomenon
of vast fluctuations in money value of currency notes in
circulation in each nation. When the US Dollar registered a
steep upward rise, currencies in many other countries made
downward slip. What was the value of one hundred rupees
twenty years ago is vastly different from what it is today.
This substantial change has caused its impact on the cost of
living also.
The Central Government while changing the figures in
the compensation amount after an interval of a decade was
only influenced by the desire to update the money value of
the compensation. In other words, what you were to pay ten
years ago to one person cannot be the same if it is paid
today in the same figure of currency notes. It is for the
purpose of meeting the reality that the Central Government
changed the figures.
The unjust consequence resulting from the
interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be
demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who
sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward
incident was disabled from making an application immediately
and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get
the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed
on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly
dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the
application and the claimant approaches the High Court in
appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Court
could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many
years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant
after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is
only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the
accident.
From all these, we are of the definite opinion that
the Claims Tribunal must consider what the Rules prescribed
at the time of making the order for payment of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
compensation."
In view of authoritative pronouncement made by this Court under
similar circumstances, the present appeal has to be allowed by setting
aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently we direct
the Railway Administration to pay to the appellants a total sum of Rs.4
lakhs instead of Rs.2 lakhs as awarded within a period of three months
from the date of this judgment with interest as awarded by the High
Court. If the amount of Rs.2 lakhs as awarded by the Tribunal has
already been paid, the appellants would be entitled to interest on the
balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the date of the petition till the
actual payment and not on the whole amount as awarded by us. The appeal
is allowed accordingly.
............................J.
(R.P. Sethi)
..........................J.
(D.M. Dharmadhikari)
April 12, 2002

N. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr 12-4-2002 (12%)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

N. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr 12-4-2002 (12%)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

N. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr 12-4-2002 (12%)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

You might also like