Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Dilip on 29 November, 2019
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9124 OF 2019
(@ out of SLP (C) No. 6486/2018
UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DILIP & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal No.145 of 2010.
While allowing the appeal, the High Court observed as under:
“27. It is pointed out by learned counsel for appellants that in the reported decision of Bandara Mishra vs. Union of India II (2017) ACC 484 (Cal.) decided on 12.05.2017, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Rathi Menon vs. Union of India, I(2001) ACC 453 has granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim application before the Tribunal till date of payment in respect of the death that has occurred on 21.07.2005.
In view thereof, applying the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Rathi Menon (Supra) to the instant case, it has to be held that in view of Amendment in the Railway Rules with effect from 01.01.2017 vide Notification issued by Ministry of Railways on 22.12.2016, Signature Not Verified the appellants become entitled to get compensation in the Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Date: 2019.12.04 sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim petition before 16:03:03 IST Reason:
the Tribunal till the date of realization.
28. To sum up, therefore, appeal is allowed with no order 2 as to costs. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside.
The claim petition of the appellants is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of lodging of claim application i.e. 28.04.2006 till the date of realization.
The amount of compensation together with interest shall be paid by the respondent by issuing on account payee cheque in favour of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 in equal proportion within period of three months from today.” In effect, the High Court awarded compensation taking Rs.8 lakhs to be the base figure and granted interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of lodging the claim application, to arrive at the aggregate sum of compensation.
The question, whether in respect of accidents that occurred before the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 were amended w.e.f. 27.12.2016, the amount of compensation has to be arrived, taking into account the base figure of Rs.4 lakh or Rs.8 lakhs was considered by this Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi [ (2019) 3 SCC 572]. The issue was considered by this Court in paragraphs 18 and 19 as under:
“18. The learned Amicus has referred to judgments of this Court in Union of india vs.Raman Iron Foundry [(1974) 2 SCC 231] and Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CWT [(1966) 2 SCR 688) to submit that quantum of compensation applicable is to be as on the award of the Tribunal as the amount due is only on that day and not earlier. In Kesoram Industries, the question was when for purposes of calculating “net wealth” under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 provision for payment of tax could be treated as “debt owed” within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the said Act. This Court held that “debt” was obligation to pay. The sum payable on a contingency, however, does not become “debt” 3 until the said contingency happens. The liability to pay tax arises on such tax being quantified. But when the rate of tax is ascertainable, the amount can be treated as debt for the year for which the tax is due for purposes of valuation during the accounting year in question. There is no conflict in the ratio of this judgment with the principle propounded in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi vs. Union of India [(2009) 7 SCC 372] that in the present context right to compensation arises on the date of the accident. In Raman Iron Foundry, the question was whether a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to “a debt” till the liability is determined. It was held that no debt arises from a claim for unliquidated damages until the liability is adjudicated. Even from this judgment it is not possible to hold that the liability for compensation, in the present context, arises only on determination thereof and not on the date of accident. Since it has been held that interest is required to be paid, the premise on which Rathi Menon vs. Union of India [(2001) 3 SCC 714] is based has changed. We are of the view that law in the present context should be taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just and fair from time to time. In this context, rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Once concept of interest has been introduced, principles of the Workmen Compensation Act can certainly be applied and judgment of the four-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [(1976) 1 SCC 289] will fully apply. Wherever it is found that the revised amount of applicable compensation as on the date of award of the Tribunal is less than the prescribed amount of compensation as on the date of accident with interest, higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded on the principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislation is certainly a piece of beneficent legislation.[Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [(2008) 9 SCC 527].
19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, 4 this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Meno and Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. South-East Central Railways, [(2019) 12 SCC 387] stands explained accordingly. The four-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.” The aforesaid judgment was further explained by this Court in Union of India vs. Radha Yadav [2019 4 SCC 410] as under:
“10.The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Devi is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.” In the circumstances, the operative part of the directions issued by the High Court is not consistent with the law laid down by this Court. Consequently, we allow this appeal and direct that 5 the compensation be computed taking interest @ 7.5% per annum in accordance with both the modalities namely;
(a) which was in existence before the amendment with Rs.4 lakhs as the base figure
(b) which came into existence after the amendement, with Rs.8 lakhs as the base figure.
The compensation shall thereafter be payable in accordance with the sum which is greater of the two, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant pursuant to Order dated 6.3.2018 passed by this Court towards costs of the respondent, shall also be made over to the respondent alongwith interest accrued thereon.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9125 OF 2019 (@ out of SLP (C) No. 15037/2019) Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the order passed in Civll Appeal No.9124 of 2019 (@ out of SLP (C) No. 6486/2018).
........................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) .......................J. (VINEET SARAN ) New Delhi November 29,2019.
6
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6486/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-06-2017 in FA No. 145/2010 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Nagpur) UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS DILIP & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 15037/2019 (IX) ( IA No.88541/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.88543/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88542/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 29-11-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr.Adv Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kr. Verma, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv.
Ms. Akansha Kaul, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Arjun Vinod, Adv.
Ms. Richa Relhan, Adv.
Ms. Surbhi Sardana, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv.
Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Y. A, Adv.7
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(signed order is placed on the file)