Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

HIGH COURT AWARDS RS. 8.2 LAKH COMPENSATION FOR GUNSHOT INJURY CAUSED BY RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE NEGLIGENCE

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala has awarded compensation of Rs. 8.2 lakhs to a petitioner who suffered a gunshot injury due to the negligence of a Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable. The judgment, delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, highlights the importance of holding the railway accountable for such incidents and providing adequate redressal to victims.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan emphasized, “The Railway ought to have risen to the occasion and redress the grievance of the petitioner without asking the victim, like the petitioner, to lead a legal battle. All legal battles are worth fighting, but some are not worth winning.”

The petitioner, Manaf M., had sustained a bullet injury when the constable accidentally pulled the trigger of his service pistol at Trivandrum Central Railway Station in 2012. Despite admitting the incident and negligence, the railway contested the matter, raising jurisdictional objections and suggesting the petitioner approach the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Addressing the maintainability of the writ petition, the court rejected the objections and asserted its jurisdiction to determine compensation in the absence of a specific forum. The court referred to the Railways Act, 1989, and concluded that the incident did not fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” as per the act, hence justifying the intervention of the court.

Assessing the quantum of compensation, the court considered the petitioner’s trauma, the severity of the injury, the subsequent major surgery, and the resulting permanent disability. The compensation offered by the railway was deemed inadequate, and the court awarded a higher amount, stating, “The petitioner is entitled to a total amount of Rs. 8,20,000/- as compensation from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 towards pain and suffering, future treatment, and loss of amenities.”

Recognizing the delay in providing compensation, the court awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the incident. Justice Kunhikrishnan expressed disappointment in the railway’s approach, stating, “The Railway unnecessarily dragged the petitioner into this litigation.” The court urged the railway to promptly address grievances and build citizen confidence.

The judgment sets a precedent for holding the railway accountable for negligence and ensuring fair compensation for victims of such incidents. It highlights the importance of swift redressal and emphasizes the responsibility of the railway to protect the rights and well-being of its passengers and citizens.

 Date of Decision: 20th July 2023

MANAF.M. vs UNION OF INDIA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Manaf_Vs_UOI_20july23_Kerl.HC_.pdf"]

Latest Legal News