Tag: #accident

-Report by Himanshu Sahu

FACTS

Vinod Kumar, the deceased, embarked on a train journey on June 12, 2017, from Shahdara to Faridabad aboard a local train. Tragically, while the train was travelling between Faridabad and Tughlaqabad Station, specifically at KM 1514/13-11 JNC Yard, the deceased fell from the train due to a sudden jerk and the push of fellow passengers. Regrettably, he lost his life on the spot. Additionally, the journey ticket and the deceased’s belongings, including his bag, were also lost during the incident. Subsequently, the claimant filed a case in the tribunal seeking compensation, but the judge did not favour the claimant. As a result, an appeal has been made to the court for further consideration and potential compensation.

APPELLANT\’S CONTENTION

The counsel representing the appellants argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider important factors, such as the contents of the final report by the Station House Officer (SHO) and the statements of witnesses. The SHO\’s report, along with the testimonies of witnesses, indicated that the death occurred due to a fall from the moving train. The appellants\’ counsel also emphasized that the mere absence of the journey ticket should not automatically lead to the dismissal of the compensation claim.
Furthermore, the testimony of a witness named Ramkeshwar Ram supported the appellants\’ case. Ramkeshwar Ram stated that the deceased had visited his brother-in-law before the incident and was carrying a bag of clothes. He had purchased a ticket for the deceased, who boarded the local train for Faridabad. This additional evidence strengthened the appellants\’ position in their pursuit of compensation.

RESPONDENT\’S CONTENTION

The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, defended the judgment and requested the dismissal of the appeal or support the decision of the tribunal.

JUDGMENT

The court reviewed whether the incident could be categorized as an \”untoward incident\” according to Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. As the deceased\’s body was discovered on the railway track during the train journey, the court determined that it did meet the criteria for an untoward incident. The court consider the final report provided by the Station House Officer (SHO). Consequently, the court recognized the deceased as a legitimate passenger and the incident as an untoward incident. As a result, the appeal was granted, and the previous order was overturned. The case is now referred back to the Tribunal to determine the compensation amount in accordance with the law. The matter will be scheduled for the earliest available date on 10.07.2023. The compensation amount should be paid to the appellants/claimants within two weeks following the decision.

CASE NAME: SITA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

-Report by Manya Sharma

A two Judge-Bench discussed fair and just compensation for the affected parties related to the deceased and provided for the heads to be considered while calculating the same. After considering a variety of factors, the Supreme Court ruled in the favour of the Appellants and allowed an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,29,260/-, who had felt aggrieved by the earlier judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

FACTS

On 11.08.2009, a bus of Jammu and Kashmir State Road Corporation, which was being driven by the deceased husband of the first Respondent, fell into river Chenab. It was carrying Sudesh Kumar, aged 32 years, who drowned in the river. The Appellants claimed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for total compensation of Rs. 50 Lakhs, under different heads.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the claim of the petitioners was correct and the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, Mohd. Rasid. State Road Transport Corporation was held vicariously liable with Mohd. Rasid and the petitioners were entitled to an amount of Rs. 17,73,704/- with an interest of 6% per annum.

Dissatisfied by the compensation, the Appellants approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for higher compensation and additional compensation of Rs. 2,95,000/- was granted to them at the interest rate of 9% per annum and the total compensation thus went up to Rs. 20,68,704/-. The Appellants still felt that the compensation was inadequate and hence approached the Supreme Court under Section 168 of the MV Act.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The Appellants, referring to the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and Others, contended that the High Court, while giving the judgment and quantifying the amount payable, did not consider the future prospects of the deceased, under the head of ‘loss of dependency and other heads. It is also contended that no amount was added under the heads, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses.’

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Contrary to the Appellants, the Respondents contended that the High Court has granted just compensation to the Appellants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and no other factors need to be considered for the same as it is adequate. It is also further contended that the compensation under the head ‘loss of love’ is impermissible and under ‘loss of consortium,’ only Rs. 40,000 is to be granted going by the Pranay Sethi case.

COURT’S DECISION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there is no justification for not reckoning the future prospects which he would have had but for his untimely death. The Court took the decisions in Pranay Sethi’s case and Sarla Verma and Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., and held that they have no hesitation to uphold the contention of the Appellants that 50% of the actual salary of the deceased has to be added while calculating the compensation. The added amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, under the heads ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ was granted to the Appellants, by the Supreme Court, which was not granted by the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court discussed the Pranay Sethi case, where three heads were recognized for the consideration of compensation and these heads were ‘loss of estate,’ ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and accordingly fixed the amounts to be added and deducted for the same in the calculation of total compensation. Apart from this, referring to the Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, the court held that compensation to the head of ‘love and affection’ is impermissible for ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife’ and ‘loss of parental consortium to children’ are admissible. Further, Rs. 40,000/- each was granted to minor children of the deceased and adjusted against ‘parental consortium’, the amount to be taken from the head of ‘love and affection which has to be removed from the list of heads, after deduction of the remaining Rs. 1,20,000/- from the same.

Thus, the Appellants were entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 10,29,260/- which would be paid within 8 weeks from the date of judgement, and in case of failure of the same, would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till the date of realisation.