The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata, challenging the judgment/award dated 08.03.2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, which had allowed the claim for compensation. The ground of challenge was the interest awarded by the tribunal.
The appellant contended that the awarded amount had already been deposited before the learned court but challenged only the interest awarded by the learned tribunal. Relying on Union of India Versus Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, the appellant submitted that the interest had been wrongly calculated and requested modification of the interest portion of the award.
The case arose from an untoward incident on 24.01.2016, when the deceased Gandhi Sawaiyan was travelling by train after purchasing a general ticket from Maluka Station to Jhinkpani Station. Near Jhinkpani Station, due to overcrowding, jostling, and heavy pressure from passengers inside, the deceased fell from the running train. He received grievous injuries and died on the spot shortly thereafter. An FIR was lodged by the GRP/Dongowaposi bearing U.D. Case No. 02/2016 dated 24.01.2016.
The tribunal examined both the documents and witness testimonies, and concluded that the deceased had died after falling from the train. Based on this, the tribunal ordered the appellant-Railway to pay compensation of Rs. 8, 00,000/- as per the amendment made by the notification dated 22.12.2016 (G.S.R. 1165(E)) under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Additionally, the tribunal directed that the compensation amount should carry interest at 6% per year starting from the date the claim was filed, 24.08.2016, until the judgment date. If the payment was delayed beyond 90 days, interest would then be payable at a higher rate of 9% per year until the amount was actually paid.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that there was no illegality in the impugned judgment/award and dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant’s counsel confirmed that the awarded amount had already been deposited before the tribunal, and directed that if disbursal had not yet been made to the claimants, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants on proper verification.
Appearances:
For Appellant: Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, Advocate
For Respondents: None appeared
