Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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