MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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