Railway Accident Claim – Death in Untoward Incident – Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989 – Appellant claimed compensation for the death of her brother who allegedly fell from a moving train – Railway Claims Tribunal and Gauhati High Court rejected the claim on grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and no ticket was found – Appellant argued that the absence of a ticket does not negate the claim as per Union of India v. Rina Devi – Tribunal and High Court failed to consider the report of the Investigating Officer and post-mortem findings indicating blunt force trauma consistent with a fall from a train – Supreme Court held that the burden of proof had shifted to the Railways once the appellant provided prima facie evidence through affidavits and investigation reports – Absence of a ticket does not rebut the presumption of being a bona fide passenger. [Paras 1-17]

Compensation and Interest – Quantum of Compensation – Entitlement under Amended Rules – Appellant entitled to compensation under the amended Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 – The Supreme Court awarded compensation of ₹8,00,000, the current amount specified in the rules, with interest payable from the date of the Supreme Court's order if not paid by the stipulated deadline – Union of India v. Radha Yadav followed. [Paras 18-21]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Awarded – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and Gauhati High Court, and directed the Union of India to pay ₹8,00,000 to the appellant by September 30, 2024 – Interest to accrue at 6% per annum if payment is delayed. [Paras 22-23]

Property Tax – Liability of Subsequent Owner – High Court directed Rajkot Municipal Corporation (Appellant) to refund a portion of property tax paid by Avenue Supermarts Limited (Respondent No. 2) related to arrears prior to the acquisition of ownership – Appellant's argument based on Sections 139 and 140 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (GPMC Act) that the new owner should bear such liability – High Court upheld that Respondent No. 2 could not be held responsible for tax dues before 03.09.2015, the date of acquisition of ownership – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the High Court's order to refund the excessive tax amount with interest was justified in light of statutory interpretation and the factual context​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order directing refund affirmed – No interference with the High Court's judgment​.

Motor Accident Claims – Contributory Negligence – The Supreme Court found that the lower courts incorrectly applied the principle of contributory negligence, leading to a reduced compensation award – The claimant was engaged in a regular overtaking maneuver when the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the other vehicle – The finding of contributory negligence was reversed, and the compensation was accordingly revised [Paras 10-13].

Multiplier Method – Misapplication – The Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 9 – Based on the age of the deceased and the principles in Sarla Verma, the correct multiplier should have been 15 – This correction significantly increased the compensation awarded [Paras 14-16].

Future Prospects – Inclusion in Compensation – The Court applied the principles from Pranay Sethi to include 25% future prospects in the income calculation of the deceased – This adjustment further increased the compensation amount due to the surviving family members [Para 15].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the compensation awarded to Rs. 11,25,000 from Rs. 1,01,250 – The interest rate was adjusted to 8% p.a. – Other directions of the Tribunal were left undisturbed​.

Interest on Arbitration Award – Compound Interest – The Court held that unless explicitly provided under the statute, contract, or award, compound interest or interest on interest is not permissible – The decree of the lower court granting simple interest was upheld – The Court emphasized that awards and decrees should clearly specify the nature of interest awarded to avoid ambiguity [Paras 23-28].

Interpretation of Statutes – CPC Section 34 & Arbitration Act – Interest should only be awarded on the principal sum adjudged unless the statute or contract specifies otherwise – The Court relied on established precedents to conclude that compound interest cannot be awarded without explicit authorization [Paras 14-17].

Decision:

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, upholding the view that the petitioner was not entitled to compound interest on the awarded amount.

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Enhancement of award – The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted by the High Court from ₹2,05,000 to ₹3,81,900, correcting the multiplier, personal expense deductions, and future prospects additions – The Court applied 30% towards future prospects instead of 25%, as per Pranay Sethi guidelines – Deduction for personal expenses reduced to 1/4th considering four dependents – Enhanced compensation includes Rs. 1,93,600 for loss of consortium, as per updated calculations of conventional heads [Paras 6-9].

Future Prospects – Calculation – Court adjusted future prospects from 25% to 30% in line with guidelines for individuals aged 40-50 – The High Court’s calculation on this aspect was corrected to align with the Pranay Sethi precedent [Para 6].

Deduction for Personal Expenses – Four Dependents – The Supreme Court reduced the personal expense deduction from 1/3rd to 1/4th, given the four dependents on the deceased – This adjustment resulted in a higher amount for loss of dependency [Para 5].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses – Updated amounts were calculated with a 10% increase every three years since 2017 – Court adjusted the compensation accordingly to Rs. 1,93,600 under loss of consortium, and Rs. 36,300 under loss of estate and funeral expenses [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 10,06,900 from Rs. 8,30,000 – Interest rate modified to 7.5% p.a. from 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount.

Contract Law – Blacklisting – Proportionality – Blacklisting of a contractor by a government body is a serious and drastic measure that has severe consequences – The appellant was blacklisted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for non-payment of dues and alleged non-performance of contractual obligations – The High Court's Division Bench upheld the blacklisting, but the Supreme Court found that the penalty was disproportionate and not justified by the circumstances – The Court emphasized that blacklisting should be resorted to only in cases where there is harm or potential harm to public interest or where the conduct of the party is so egregious as to justify such a measure [Paras 22-30, 36-42].

Natural Justice – Hearing and Reasons – The Supreme Court reiterated the necessity for strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, especially when an order has serious civil consequences like blacklisting – The reasons for blacklisting must be cogent and must demonstrate how public interest is affected – The absence of such reasons renders the blacklisting order unsustainable [Paras 22-24, 36-37].

Arbitration – Pending Proceedings – The Court took into account the fact that there was a pending arbitration between the parties, where the issues related to the contract were being adjudicated – The existence of a bona fide dispute should have prevented the Corporation from taking the drastic step of blacklisting before the arbitration was resolved [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside – The blacklisting order dated 02.03.2016 is quashed – The judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, which had set aside the blacklisting order, is restored.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Appeal by the complainant against acquittal of the accused in a case under Section 138 – The cheque issued as a security for a loan was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Trial court and High Court both found in favor of the accused – Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, noting contradictions in the complainant's statements regarding the issuance and presentation of the cheque – The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was successfully rebutted by the accused by raising a preponderance of probabilities – Court emphasized that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be disturbed unless there is clear perversity or miscarriage of justice [Paras 1-34].

Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act – Rebuttal – The accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 by showing inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence – Court reiterates that the presumption does not absolve the complainant from the burden of proof entirely, especially when contradictions are apparent [Paras 18-29].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Principles for appellate interference with acquittal reiterated – The Supreme Court should interfere with acquittals only in cases of clear perversity or lack of evidence – Emphasis on protecting the presumption of innocence and the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – The findings of the High Court are upheld, and no interference by the Supreme Court is warranted.

Judicial Discipline – Comity Between Courts – The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of remarks made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that were considered unnecessary and derogatory towards the Supreme Court – Emphasized that compliance with Supreme Court orders is not discretionary but a constitutional obligation – The Court reiterated the importance of maintaining judicial discipline to uphold the dignity of all courts in the hierarchical judicial system [Paras 3-9].

Expunging of Remarks – Judicial Restraint – The Supreme Court expunged the remarks made by Justice Sehrawat, stressing that such observations were uncalled for and could harm the sanctity of the judicial process – The Court also highlighted the need for caution in making public statements, especially in an era of widespread media coverage, to avoid undermining public trust in the judiciary [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

The Supreme Court expunged the controversial remarks made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat in the order dated 17 July 2024 – The Court expressed hope that greater caution would be exercised in the future and disposed of the proceedings without issuing notice to the judge involved.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Respondents alleged to have violated Supreme Court's order granting interim anticipatory bail – Petitioner contends wrongful detention, custodial torture, and failure to comply with procedural safeguards – The Court issued notice of contempt to police officers and judicial authorities involved, with subsequent discharge of certain respondents after determining no willful disobedience – Apologies tendered by respondents considered by the Court – The Court emphasizes the need for strict adherence to judicial orders, especially in custodial matters [Paras 1-40].

Police Custody Remand – Improper Grant – Petitioner was remanded to police custody despite Supreme Court’s order granting interim anticipatory bail – The Court scrutinized the remand application and the Magistrate's conduct, finding procedural irregularities and misuse of judicial discretion – Highlights the distinction between non-cooperation in investigation and refusal to confess – Court reiterates that police custody should not be granted mechanically and must be backed by substantial justification [Paras 33-35].

Custodial Torture – Allegations and Inquiry – Petitioner alleged torture during police custody, claiming injuries and coercion – Judicial officer conducted an improper inquiry by physically inspecting the petitioner, which was outside her jurisdiction – The Court notes the allegations are subject to independent inquiry and refrains from commenting, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural norms in such inquiries [Paras 31-34].

Decision:
Contempt notices discharged for some respondents; the petition was partly allowed – Detailed inquiry and adherence to procedural norms mandated – Apologies by respondents were accepted by the Court, with admonitions to avoid similar lapses in the future.