NATH SINGH Vs. EAST INDIAN RLY ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals under Section 82F(2) of the Indian Railways Act from an order of the Claims Commissioner dated the 18th of August 1951, and the principal point for consideration is the amount of compensation to which the appellants are entitled by reason of the provisions of Section 82A and the rules made under Section 32J of the Indian Railways Act. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 329 of 1950, the appellant, who was the claimant before the Claims Commissioner, is Sri Sreenath Singh, an advocate of this Court. The appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 330 of 1951, who was the claimant before the learned. Claims Commissioner, is Sri T.R. Bhatia. Both these gentlemen were travelling by the 7 Up Toofan Express on the 13th of August 1950, This train met with an accident near Karamnasa, and as a result of the accident, the appellants sustained severe personal injuries and lost their personal effects. Both of them were first removed to Mogalsarai by a relief train, then to the hospital at Benares & ultimately to the Patna General Hospital. At the Patna General Hospital, they were indoor patients for some months; and their case before the Claims Commissioner was that they were still suffering from the effects of the personal injuries sustained by them in the accident.

(2.) The questions raised in the two appeals are principally questions of law bearing on the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. Therefore, it is unnecessary to give details of the injuries sustained by the appellants. It is, however, necessary to indicate how the Claims Commissioner proceeded to consider and decide the claims preferred by the two appellants. Section 82A (I am reading only the relevant portion) lays down that, when in the course of working a railway an accident occurs, whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration such as would entitle a person who has been injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the Railway Administration shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, be liable to pay compensation to the extent set out in Sub-section (2) and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. Sub-section (2) states that the liability of a railway administration shall in no case exceed ten thousand rupees in respect of any one person. Section 82A was inserted by Section 2 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, III of 1942. In 1949, further amendments were made by the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, LVI of 1949. Sections 82B to 82J were added. These sections related to the appointment of Claims Commissioners, application for compensation, procedure and powers of Claims Commissioners, interim orders for compensation, liability to pay compensation etc. to be decided by the Claims Commissioners, and appeals from their orders etc. Section 82H saved the right of any person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or any other law for the time being in force or under any contract or scheme providing for payment of compensation etc. Section 82J is important, and I propose to read it in full:

(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that his clients are entitled to the maximum compensation laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act. In support of this contention, he has urged the following points. Firstly, he has argued that the rules made under Section 82J (particularly Rule 6), so far as they are inconsistent with the meaning, and go beyond the scope, of Section 82A, must give way to the provisions of that section. Secondly, he has contended that the rules are incomplete and do not cover the cases of the, two appellants; therefore, the general rules relating to damages in an action in tort should be applied, subject to the maximum fixed by Sub-section (2) of Section 82A. These have been the two principal arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants. He has also submitted that the certificate of Dr. V.N. Singh, on which the learned Claims Commissioner relied, should not have been preferred to another certificate which the same Surgeon had given in respect of the injuries of Sri Srinath Singh in support of the claim of the appellant. I propose now to consider the arguments in the order in which I have stated them.