L SRIDHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, practising Chartered Accountant, in this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the constitutional validity or otherwise of Rules 3 and 4 of Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'rules' ). The impugned Rules are extracted and they are as under :3. Amount of compensation :

(2.) ). These Rules are questioned on the ground that the schedule to the Rules impose an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction and inasmuch as there is no provision made with regard to awarding of compensation to certain category of injuries. Secondly, Rules 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the Rules are irrational and unreasonable since the legislature has failed to provide for claiming higher and just compensation. Thirdly, it is stated that the Central Government cannot bring any discrimination amongst the users of any mode of transport, such as air, motor vehicle or railways, which are all carriers falling under different, Public Transport System by enacting different legislations fixing different rate of compensation in respect of death or injuries in an accident. Thus the rules suffer from the vice of discrimination and thus violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In so far as Rule 4 is concerned, it is stated that by fixing the limit at a maximum of Rs. 2 lakhs for death, it infringes the claimant's right to claim a just and fair compensation as per the general law of damages and, therefore, it is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Sri S. R. Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the grounds urged in the petition at the time of hearing of the petition.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed their statement of objections resisting the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. Sri Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel for respondents, ably justifies the impugned provisions.