UNION OF INDIA Vs. THANKARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against judgments of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, granting compensation for death or personal injuries to passengers under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Rules issued thereunder. Except M.F.A. No. 915 of 1998 all the other appeals are at the instance of the railway administration. The common question of law that arises in all these appeals is whether in respect of death happened or injury sustained before the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 came into force the enhanced rate of compensation under the amended Rules can be made applicable. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench granted compensation in O.A. No. 137 of 1997, O.A. No. 24 of 1996, O.A. No. 142 of 1997, O.A. No. 136 of 1997, O.A. No. 124 of 1997, T.A. No. 56 of 1997, O.A. No. 93 of 1997, O.A. No. 94 of 1997 and O.A. No. 3 of 1998 by applying the amended Rules. These judgments are challenged by the railway administration in M.F.A. Nos. 816, 839, 1249, 1265, 1282, 1284, 1292, 1293 and 1320 of 1998. In T.A. No. 259 of 1996 the Tribunal applied unamended provisions and, therefore, the judgment is challenged at the instance of the applicants. The contentions are raised in the appeals by the railway administration on the merits of the claim also. We will first consider the common question of law and thereafter deal with the factual contentions raised in each case separately.

(2.) Section 124 of the Railways Act 1989 provides for liability of railway administration for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger, dying as a result or the railway accident and for personal injury and loss of property whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or de fault on the part of the railway administra tion. Section 82-A of the Indian Railway Act, 1890 is the forerunner of this provision. The compensation payable by the railway administration under section 12 is 'to such extent as may be prescribed' and to that extent only. The amount of compensation thus payable is specified in Schedule II of the Railway Acci'dents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Railway (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force with effect from 1.8.1994 brought in amendment to section 123 by introducing a new concept of 'untoward incident'. As a consequence a new section as section 124-A was also introduced after section 124 of the Act. The term 'accident' is defined under section 123 as an accident of the nature described in section 124. An accident described in section 124 is one which occurs in the course of working a railway either by a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers. By the 1994 amendment clause (c) was added to section 123, which reads as follows:

(3.) Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 provides that the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be specified in the Schedule. These Rules are issued under section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with section 22 of the General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) and in supersession of the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1989. The Rules came into force with effect from 1.8.1994. The Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1989 which were issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 82-J of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 contained more or less similar provisions as in the 1990 Rules which came into force on 1.8.1994. But the quantum of compensation prescribed under the Schedule was different. For example: Under Part I to the Schedule for death the amount of compensation prescribed under the 1989 Rules was only Rs. 1,00,000 which was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 in the 1990 Rules. Similar enhancement can be noticed against other items in Part II also. Subsequently, the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was further amended by the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1994 mainly for the purpose of taking in the compensation in respect of untoward incidents also. But we find that there was no enhancement of the quantum of compensation from what was provided in the Schedule under 1990 Rules. Three years later the Rules underwent a further amendment by Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997. By this amendment only change brought in was enhancement of the quantum of compensation. The amount was doubled against each item given under Part I and II. The amount of Rs. 2,00,000 provided under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 as the amount of compensation payable for injury not specified in Part II or III of the Schedule, but which in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work was enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000. By an amendment to the second proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 3 where a limitation for total compensation in respect of injuries not specified in the Schedule or referred in sub-rule (2) was enhanced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 80,000. Rule 4 provides for a limit of compensation in respect of any one person. This limit was amended and enhanced from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000.