RATHI MENON versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 13-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RATHIMENON 
A 
v. 
~ 
UNION OF INDIA 
MARCH 13, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Raihvay Accident Compensation Rules, 1990: Rule 3(2). 
'"" 
Accident-Untoward incident-Compensation-Payable of-Rules in 
force on the date of accident or rules in force at the time of ordering of c 
payment-In acc01rlance with-Applicability of-Passenger tluvwn offfrom a 
running train and the wheels of the train ran over her right ann severing it J1vm 
shoulder point-Another train ran over her n·ght leg causing its amputation~ 
Raihvay Claims Tribunal awarded enhanced compensation a1· pa amended 
•\ 
Rules which came into force after the accident-But High Cou11 reduced the 
compensation qn the ground that the enhanced compensation was not payable 
D 
since the accident took place before amendment of Rules-Correctness of-
Held: Time of ordering payment is more important to detennine the extent of 
compensation-Compensation has to be detennined with reference to rules at 
the time of payment of compensation-Hence, Claims Tribunal rightly awarded 
the enhanced compensation-Raihvays Act, 1989, Ss. 124-A and 128 
E 
1 
Woni> and Phrases : 
"As may be prescribed"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 124-A of the 
Raihvays Act, 1989. 
The appellant was thrown offtrom a running train and the wheels of 
F 
the Train ran over the appellant's right arm severing it from the shoulder 
i 
joint. Shortly thereafter another train ran over the appellant's right leg 
causing its sudden amputation. 
The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 124-A of the 
G 
Railways Act, 1989 before the Railway Claims Tribunal. During the 
pendency of the claim Rule 3(2) of ftte Railway Accident Compensation 
Rules, 1990 was amended and the amount of compensation was enhanced. 
The Tribunal awarded enhanced compensation in accordance with the 
.) 
amended Rules. However, the High Court reduced the compensation on 
the ground that the enhanced compensation was not payable to the appel-
H 
365 
. 1. 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
lant as the accident took place prior to the amendment of the Rules. Hence. 
this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The collocation of the words "as may be prescribed" in 
B 
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is to be understood as to mean ''as 
may be prescribed from time to time". The relevance of the date of unto-
ward incident is that the right to claim compensation from the Railway 
Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. The statute 
did not fix the amount of compensation, but left it to be determined by the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Central Government from time to time by means of Rules. This delegation 
to the Central Government indicated that it was difficult for the Parlia-
ment to fix the amount because compensation amount is a varying phe-
nomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous position to 
ascertain what would be just and reasonable compensation in respect of a 
myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into account very many fac-
tors. What the legislature wanted was that the victim of the accident must 
be paid compensation and the amount must represent a reality, which 
means the amount should be fair and reasonable compensation. Govern-
ment have the better wherewithal to ascertain and fix such amount. It is 
for the said reason that the Parliament left it to the Government to dis-
charge that function. Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act speak the same 
language that "the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compen-
sation''. Hence, the time of ordering payment is more important to deter-
mine as to what is the extent of the compensation, which is prescribed by 
the Rules to be disbursed to the claimant. [372-C-F] 
2. tr a person files a suit the amount of compensation will depend 
upon what the court considers just and reasonable on the date of determi-
nation. Hence, when he goes before the Claims Tribunal claiming compen-
sation the determination of the amount should be as on the date of such 
determination. (373-F] 
3. The Claims Tribunal must consider what the Railway Accident 
Compensation Rules, 1990 prescril!ed at the time of making the order for 
payment of the compensation. (375-B] 
'( 
i 
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, [1976) 1 SCC 289; PA. 
'-
H 
Narayanan v. Union of India, [1998) 3 SCC 67; Maghar Singh v. Jashwant 
' 
RATH! MENON v. U.0.1. [THOMAS, J.] 
367 
Singh, [1998] 9 SCC 134; New India Assurance Co. Ltd

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.