SEMESTER I (Academic Year- 2022-23)

Philosophy
Topic- “Case Analysis of Union of India vs Tilak Raj Singh (2018)”

SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. Peter Akbar
Assistant Professor
NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law

SUBMITTED BY:
Abhishek Kumar Pandey
B.A. LL. B (Hons.) Div. B
Roll No. B011
Table of Contents:

Sr. No. Content Page No.

1. Introduction 2
2. Facts 2
3. Issues 3
4. Arguments 3
5. The Ruling of Trail Court 4
6. Judgement by High court - 01/06/2018 4
7. Reference 6

Case - Union of India vs Tilak Raj Singh (2018)

Introduction

The journey from Meerut to Ludhiana undertaken by the Plaintiff has proved to be a very long one. An unfortunate
incident that occurred on 20th October, 1987 i.e. three decades ago is the subject matter of the present appeal. It
has been over 30 years and the Plaintiff has been running from pillar to post, seeking compensation, after having
had his left leg amputated in a train accident. It is the Plaintiff's case that there were several deficiencies, and in
fact, negligence by the railways which led to such a severe consequence of loss of a leg. He, accordingly, filed a
suit in the District Court at Meerut on 3rd September, 1990 seeking damages/compensation. The railways raised an
issue of jurisdiction and, after a period of 12 years, on 14th January, 2002, the plaint was returned by the Civil
Court, Meerut to be filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Facts

Mr. Tilak Raj Singh, the plaintiff and respondent in this case, traveled from Meerut Cantt to Ludhiana
on the Frontier Mail traveling in the second general class compartment. When the train arrived in
Muzaffarnagar, approximately 5/6 of the train's compartments did not reach up till the platform. This is
because the train has 17 compartments, but the Muzaffarnagar station has the capacity to accommodate
only 13 coaches. In addition, the train was fully packed and carrying more than 200 passengers in a
bogie that is only meant for 90 passengers. As a result of the overcrowding, the plaintiff, who was
standing near the right hand exit with other passengers, was forced to The people who were getting off
the train would undoubtedly have a tough time getting down from the train because four of the
compartments were located outside the platforms. The plaintiff and another passenger were both thrown
to the ground when the train suddenly moved with a jerk. The plaintiff became entangled between the
wheels of the train and was dragged for a considerable distance.

The plaintiff did not receive any first aid from the railways and was instead transported to the civil
hospital in Muzaffarnagar on a rickshaw. After suffering a significant amount of blood loss and being
exposed to unsanitary conditions there, he became infected and had to be transferred to the Safdarganj
Hospital. Because the infection would not go away, the plaintiff had to have his left leg amputated after
he underwent his fifth operation, which was performed by an orthopaedic surgeon in a nursing home in
Meerut. Despite all of these operations, the infection did not go away. The accident resulted in
significant harm being inflicted upon the plaintiff. He was forced to give up a sport, and despite the fact
that he was studying law at Meerut, he was unable to advance in his academic career. He was unable to
continue his studies.

Issues

There are many issues which are placed b the defendant which is Railways (Union of India) is
when plaintiff filed suit in the District Court at Meerut on 03/09/1990 seeking damages/
compensation. The railways raised an issue of jurisdiction and second issues is whether the
plaintiff is entitled to the decree of money as prayed by him if yes then on which calculation
does he is entitled to get, third issue is that the plaintiff is claim an interest on prayed amount, if
so then on what interest does he is entitled and for what period, fourth issues is that the court
has no particular jurisdiction over this particular matter, fifth issue is does every train have to
horn, whistle, wan before moving because on the station there are trains on every few minutes
at every platform and the last issue is the plaintiff is bona fide passenger or not.

Arguments

Defendant/Appellant
1. That is the suit is barred by the limitation which means the plaintiff is filling a suit before the
Court after the expiry of the time within which a legal proceeding should've been initiated will
be restricted.
2. That is the plaintiff is aware of the crowded train even knowledge of this he boarded the train
which means he is in the state of self negligence.
3. on what ground the trail court is calculated the basic amount and interest amount and for
what period of time?
4. That is the plaintiff is not a bona fide passenger.
5. That is the trail court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
6. That is the the amount awarded by the trail court is beyond the limit as provided under
Railways Act.

Plaintiff/Respondent
1. That is even the basic facilities of first aid were not available at the platform which displays
the negligent behaviour of Railways.
2.That is the train is moved by a jerk and without giving any type of horn or whistle at railway
station.
3.That is the reason why the Railway Authorities allowed the train which has 17 compartments
to stop at Muzaffarnagar station which doesn't have the accommodation?

The Ruling of Trail Court

After going through all the evidence and arguments, it is interesting to note that in the
document, it is clearly admitted by the Railways that Muzaffarnagar station could have
accommodation of only 13 coaches and the train is of 17 coaches and also the train is moved
with jerk and without giving any type of whistle, Horn or any warning thing which clearly
displays the negligent behaviour of Railways. Since, Plaintiff is entitled for the sum of Rs
6,60,000 along with the interest of 12% per annum.

Judgement by High court - 01/06/2018

Justice Pratibha M. Singh
(1) Future loss of profits to be calculated using the multiplier approach, as well as loss of
earnings up to the date of trial. On October 28, 1987, the incident took place. The Plaintiff was
enrolled as a law student at a university in Meerut, but he was unable to finish his degree. He
boasted of his prowess on the cricket pitch but was forced to give up competitive sports after
losing a limb. He fessed up that his 80% disability certificate helped him land a position in the
Income Tax Division. Since the Income Tax Department has not archived his pay certification,
it is impossible to speculate on what he may have made annually as a practicing lawyer if he
had instead chosen a career in law. However, as he worked for the government, he is entitled to
get retirement benefits. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not be eligible for damages under the
heading of loss of future income. Therefore, the multiplier technique is unnecessary. Since the
Plaintiff was able to secure employment in the Income Tax Department thanks to the provision
of a disability certificate, he or she has suffered no economic loss.

(2) The financial burden of medical care Damages include what the Plaintiff says they spent on
medicine, food, nursing, etc. Reviewing the Plaintiff's medical bills, starting with those from
Muzaffarnagar and ending with those from Safdarganj Hospital and surgeries in Meerut, reveals
that he has, in reality, acquired an artificial limb itself for Rs.48,000/-. Accordingly, the actual
costs the Plaintiff has incurred could be estimated at a least of Rs. 2 lakhs. He would need an
additional Rs.1 lakh for transportation between cities, food, medical care, prescriptions, etc. The
prosthetic limb's cost of Rs.48,000/- has been officially recorded by the Plaintiff. In addition,
the hospital discharge summaries and medicines have been documented. That the second injury
posed a serious threat to life is documented indisputable fashion by the MLC. Since he has
already had two orthopaedic operations and is now using an artificial limb, a grant of Rs. 3
lakhs is appropriate.
(3) Anguish and distress The Plaintiff was a young man when the accident occurred; the loss of
his youth is an immeasurable misfortune. Since his leg had to be amputated, he had to give up
his love of athletics as well. In addition, the Plaintiff could not have led a typical life, like other
boys his age, without a leg. Also, his looks has suffered greatly because of the prosthetic limb,
which causes him to walk with a limp. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs.3 lakhs in damages under
this heading.

(4) Reduced potential for getting married There is a lack of documentation suggesting that the
Plaintiff is actually married or has children. Without such evidence, it is hard for the court to
place a value on the potential marriage that was lost. Furthermore, the employment he was able
to secure with the Income Tax Department thanks to the disability category more than makes up
for any lost marital possibilities. Therefore, the Court concludes that monetary damages cannot
be awarded.

(5) Disabling changes to daily routines Making a living without a limb is challenging. A person
is deprived of the ability to lead a normal life in many respects, including the ability to walk or
stand as he pleases, the ability to utilize the mode of transportation of his choice, the ability to
go to far-flung locations, etc. Therefore, the Plaintiff is eligible for compensation under this
heading if he or she loses a limb. The Plaintiff should receive at least Rs.3 lakhs in damages
here.

(6) A diminished perspective on one's own survival vi) Over 30 years have passed since the
occurrence. Given his presence in court, it's safe to assume that the Plaintiff is in good health.
His life expectancy seemed to have been unaffected by his amputation. As a result, he is not
eligible for any payment under this heading.

This Court is of the view after an analysis of the law on the subject and the fact that the Plaintiff
has been deprived of any compensation for over 30 years, that the compensation ought to be
enhanced. The plaintiff accordingly is granted a total compensation of Rs 9 lakhs along with SI
9% per annum from the nature period of filling the suit before Meerut district court till the date
of decree passed. The amount lying deposited in this Court to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs along with
accrued interest is directed to be released to the Plaintiff within a week. The Railways is
directed to pay the remaining amount within eight weeks failing which interest on the decretal
amount shall be payable @12% till date of payment. Around 30 years of journey to this
litigation has shown that the Plaintiff was entangled in a technical objection of jurisdiction both
before the Civil Judge Meerut and the Railways. An organisation such as the Railways which is
located across the length and breadth of this country ought not to delay cases of compensation
in this manner. The whole purpose of granting compensation is defeated when amounts do not
become available to the victim immediately. The Railways ought to adopt a `Litigation policy'
to deal with cases when tortuous claims for compensation are filed against them. In such cases,
compulsory pre-litigation mediation can also be explored to bring about an early settlement.
Such a step would reduce the costs for the Railways as also reduce the number of cases filed,
and finally ensure timely and efficient payment of compensation. Copy of this order be sent to
the Secretary, Ministry of Railways as also the Railway Board.
References:

1. Indiankanoon.Org, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28242905/.
2. Tilak Raj v. Union Of India, Judgment
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5afc41774a9326672a89ce23.
3. Union of India v Tilak Raj Singh on 01 June 2018, LawyerServices
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Union-of-India-Versus-Tilak-Raj-Singh-2018-06-0