RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner challenges Rule 4 under the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 framed under the provisions of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 providing for fixed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for death of a passenger in a railway accident. The contention of the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of a deceased passenger in a train, is that the Act is discriminatory and the amount of compensation as determined under the relevant Rules set up under the Act is arbitrary and not fair. According to the learned counsel, the amount of compensation has no bearing to the income earning capacity or the loss to the estate that has been occasioned to the petitioners. The discrimination complained of also is that under the Carriage of Air Act, the amount of compensation afforded is higher and the compensation cannot vary for a same incident of death with the different quantum of compensation.

(2.) It must be understood that the Railway Accident Compensation Rules, 1990 addresses to a situation of compensating a person, who is injured or the heirs of a deceased person, who dies in an accident if he had been a passenger in a railway train. The scheme of the Act is such that it provides for a strict liability regime and it is irrelevant under the provisions of the Act that the accident itself was on account of the negligence of the person and death or injury had resulted through such negligence or any untoward incident. The right to obtain compensation through various types of accidents are governed by various statutes that set out different basis for liability. For instance, under the Motor Vehicles Act itself, there are three modes of claiming compensation for the same incident of death. Three different yardsticks are applied for arriving at the quantum of compensation. They are still not discriminatory, for each head of claim has different legal basis. For instance, for a claim to compensation on a hit and run basis, the State's liability is fixed at maximum of Rs.50,000/-. In such a situation, the possible want of negligence of a driver of a vehicle, which could not be traced, is irrelevant. Even a person dying on account of his own negligence would still leave a trail to pick for members of his family to claim a compensation. Under a structured formula provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation is on the basis of strict liability where again no negligence need be proved by a claimant. The compensation is available under Section 163-A for classes of persons, whose salary or income range between nil income to Rs.40,000/-, the maximum entitlement is provided in Schedule II of the Act. The relevance of the income and the loss to the State, the loss of income, loss of love and affection etc. are all relevant for claims for 'just compensation' under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Just compensation would enable a person to quantify to loss, which would be equivalent to the amount that the deceased could have contributed, if he had been alive. The idea is to create a fiction of compensating the dependents to the same amount as the amount that they would have benefited by, if he had been alive. If within the same enactment, there are three different compensation regimes possible, a fortiorari different regimes of compensation providing for different amounts of compensation for different types of accidents are also possible. They are not arbitrary. They are rooted on the basis for the claims for compensation. If there is a different treatment, such treatment could be seen to give rise to a reasonable nexus of an intelligible differentia to an object that is sought to be achieved namely a public interest of providing to a victim of an accident of what is appropriate under the circumstances. The compensation rules under various Acts themselves have changed over a period of time and now presently, the compensation that is allowable is Rs.4 lacs for a railway victim. The dictates of what a public exchequer can bear is not irrelevant when the Railway Administration is made liable to pay compensation. Various caps of liability under different accident regimes are still topics of intense debates in legal forums. There are still loud voices that advocate for just compensation in all types of accidents, when the loss to the family will be adequately factored by the contribution of the deceased to the family. The public opinion has not veered to an homogeneous acceptance of such principle, for it has still to cope with what a public exchequer can afford.

(3.) Presently, this enumeration has been made only to address the concern along with the petitioner that there is still a lot to be done, but presently for the purpose of the case, it has to only end on a future hope that things could change. The Court interprets law as it exists and if the challenge is made on the ground of arbitrariness or as discriminatory, the State action or legislation could succumb to such a plea only on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Constitution provides, even as it assures equality, certain forms of discrimination on a still loftier principle that the equality can be only amongst equals and the seemingly discriminatory actions, if done on an intelligible differentia, it cannot fall foul of Article 14.