'Some Legal Battles Not Worth Winning': Kerala High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh Compensation To Man Injured After Railway Constable Misfires Service Gun

The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted over ₹8 lakhs as compensation to a man who sustained a gunshot injury from a misfired service gun by a Railway Constable more than a decade ago. 

Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan expressed disappointment with the Railway and took the view that in situations like this, it ought to have risen to the occasion and redressed the petitioner's grievance without asking him to lead a legal battle.

"All legal battles are worth fighting, but some are not worth winning," the Court added. 

The petitioner and his wife were on their way to get medical treatment for their daughter in July 2012 when the 4th respondent misfired his gun, resulting in a bullet hitting him in the lower abdomen.

The petitioner had to undergo major surgery to recover from the injury. Since he was employed at the University of Kerala at the time of the incident, his treatment expenses were covered by the State. However, Advocates A. Abdul Kharim and M Sreekumar appearing for the petitioner sought compensation arguing that he suffered permanent disability, and psychological trauma, and was unable to resume his life as it was before the incident.

In their counter affidavit, the Railway admitted the incident but questioned the maintainability of the claim, citing Section 125 of the Railways Act, which specifies that compensation applications should be made to the Railways Claims Tribunal. They further contended that the incident did not fall under an 'untoward incident' category, as described in Section 124A. Advocate C. Dinesh appeared for the Constable (4th respondent), Advocates T.C Govinda Swamy, G Shyam Raj and DSGI S. Manu appeared for the other respondents in the matter.

A crucial point of contention was whether the incident qualified as an 'untoward incident' under the Act. The Court analysed if the case would come within the meaning of shoot out as mentioned in Section 124(c)(1)(iii). Since a shootout was not defined in the Act, Justice Kunhikrishnan examined the dictionary meaning of the phrase, which suggested that a gunfight should be involved in a shootout. 

Since the petitioner's injury resulted from an accidental trigger pull by the 4th respondent and not from a gunfight, the Court ruled it out as an 'untoward incident,' thereby holding that the Claims Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation. 

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the respondents were willing to offer a total of Rs. 1,20,000 to the petitioner and highlighted that this sum was finalised upon hearing the petitioner and consulting all the concerned officials and experts.

However, the petitioner found this amount meagre given the trauma he had to undergo. He claimed that he will have to undergo several surgeries in the future to completely recover, and thus claimed Rs. 3 lakhs for pain and suffering and another 10 lakhs towards loss of amenities in life. 

The Court dismissed the Railway's proposal, considering it insufficient and not taking into account the petitioner's physical and emotional pain. While the petitioner's claim was seen as slightly excessive, the Court acknowledged his enduring suffering over the past 13 years and awarded him Rs. 2 lakhs for pain and suffering. Additionally, Rs. 1,20,000 was granted to cover future medical expenses.

Recognizing that the petitioner's life had been significantly impacted since the incident, the Court awarded Rs. 5 lakhs for the loss of amenities in life. They also allowed interest to be payable to the petitioner due to the Railways' failure to address the matter promptly. 

"The Railway is introducing fast trains like "Vande Bharath", "Rajadhani", "Janshadabdhi" etc. But Railway ought to have redressed these types of grievances of the citizens also in speed track to build confidence in the citizen without dragging citizens to litigation. The Railway unnecessarily drag the petitioner into this litigation. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to interest for the amount of compensation awarded by this Court from the date of the incident."

The respondents were directed to pay this amount to the petitioner within four months. As such, the petition was allowed in part. 

Case Title: Manaf M v Union of India 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 344

Click Here To Read/Download The Order