Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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