The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that victims of railway accidents cannot be denied reimbursement of treatment and rehabilitation costs merely because they have received the maximum compensation prescribed under statutory rules. The Bench clarified that the compensation ceiling under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, did not prevent courts from separately awarding actual medical expenses and reasonable future treatment costs.
Key Ruling on Compensation and Medical Costs
Justice Pankaj Jain further made it clear that compensation prescribed under the Rules was distinct from expenditure incurred on treatment and rehabilitation, and a contrary interpretation would defeat the very purpose of the beneficial legislation.
Allowing an appeal by a young passenger who lost both his legs in an untoward railway incident, Justice Jain awarded him an additional Rs 1.2 lakh towards medical expenses actually incurred and Rs 2 lakh towards artificial limbs, over and above the compensation already granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Clarification on Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules
The ruling clarifies that the compensation ceiling under Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules does not include medical expenses incurred by an injured passenger and does not bar courts from granting such expenses separately.
At the onset, Justice Jain observed that the appellant was pursuing graduation at the time of the accident. Travelling as a bona fide passenger by train, he suffered grievous injuries in an untoward incident that resulted in the loss of both legs.
Arguments and Core Issue
Appearing before Justice Jain’s Bench, the counsel for the claimant relied upon hospital records showing that he had spent Rs 1,19,650 on treatment. It was further argued that having lost both legs, he would be required to incur substantial expenditure in future on artificial limbs and related treatment. The Union of India opposed the plea, contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was in accordance with the statutory scheme and the law applicable on the date of the accident and award.
After hearing rival contentions, Justice Jain identified the core issue as: “Whether the limit of compensation as provided under Rule 4 of 1990 Rules includes medical expenses and the expenses to be borne by a victim for his further treatment”.
Legislative Intent and Strict Liability
Examining the scheme of Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, Justice Jain observed the legislature’s intention was to compensate the passengers injured or the kith and kin of the passengers who die in untoward incidents while travelling by railways. The liability imposed upon the railway administration is founded on the principle of strict liability.
Referring to the inadequacy of the compensation framework in catastrophic injury cases, Justice Jain observed: “For many injured passengers, life becomes much difficult. The compensation awarded hardly matches medical expenditure and disability suffered remains uncompensated. The Rules were enacted in the year 1990. Though the schedule was amended in 2016 with effect from January 1, 2017, yet the amount prescribed hardly takes care of costly medical treatment undergone by the injured passengers. The objective of enactment remains illusionary.”
Interpretation of Rule 4
Justice Jain asserted the provisions had to be interpreted in light of the legislative object behind the enactment. The intent of the legislature in enacting Chapter XIII was to compensate for the loss of life and injuries caused to passengers while travelling by railways. Rule 4 merely placed a cap on compensation payable under the schedule. It could not be read as excluding reimbursement of medical expenses actually incurred by an injured passenger.
“Rule 4 caps the amount of compensation, but the same cannot be interpreted to oust the power of the Courts to grant medical expenses on actual basis. The compensation prescribed under the Rules does not include medical expenses incurred by injured passenger,” Justice Jain observed.
Court's Final Order
The court further ruled that the grant of medical expenses on actual basis and granting future medical expenses did not violate the mandate of 1989 Act or rules framed thereunder. Rather, it advanced the purpose of the enactment.
Allowing the appeal, Justice Jain modified the Tribunal’s award and directed that the claimant be paid an additional Rs 1.2 lakh towards medical expenses actually incurred, based on the medical bills produced on record.
Recognising the long-term consequences of the injuries suffered by the claimant, Justice Jain added: “He is also awarded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for artificial limb that need to be implanted to enable him to lead rest of his life.”
