Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation This Is Not a Case of Greed Simplicitor but a Celebration of Fraud: Karnataka High Court Grants Specific Performance, Slams Vendor for Violating Court Orders Limitation Period Under Section 18-A of Rent Act Mandatory, Delay Not Condonable – Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NRI Landlord's Eviction Against Tenant Custom Department Cannot Revive Time-Barred Show Cause Notices After Seven Years Without Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Notices to JBS Exports Public Property Cannot Be Managed Privately for Decades — Fair Price Shops in Hospitals Must Be Allotted by Auction: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Registered Sale Deed Alone Does Not Dismantle Prior Security Interest: Gauhati High Court Rejects Buyer’s Writ Against SARFAESI Action, Cites Expanded Statutory Definition Old OBC Certificates Won’t Work — Supreme Court Says Cut-Off Date Is Final in Rajasthan Civil Judge Exams

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"]

Similar News