Current Affair 1:

How victims are compensated in rail accidents?

 

This article is regarding tragic accident in Balasore recently.

The central government and different state governments have announced financial assistance to the kin of deceased persons and to those who sustained injuries. However, apart from the compensation from relief funds announced by governments, Indian Railways is legally bound to compensate for the loss.

Section 124 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 deals with the extent of liability of the Railway Administration for death, injury, or damage of goods belonging to passengers due to accidents. According to the Act, if a railway accident occurs involving at least one train carrying passengers including a railway servant on duty, the railway administration is legally bound to pay a prescribed compensation for loss of lives, injuries, and damage to goods belonging to passengers in the accident. The accident may be due to collision, derailment, fire, or explosion, or due to road vehicles colliding with trains at level crossings, etc.

However, no compensation would be provided if the passenger dies or gets injured in the following cases-

1. Suicide or attempted suicide
2. Self-inflicted injury
3. Own criminal act
4. Act due to insanity or intoxication
5. Due to medical conditions or disease or natural cause or surgical treatment not arising due to the train accident/untoward incident

Since 1994, the Act has also made the railway administration liable to pay compensation for loss of life or injury to bonafide rail passengers, who become victims of untoward incidents such as terrorist acts, violent attacks, robberies, dacoity, rioting, shoot-out or arson by any persons in or on any train carrying passengers, waiting hall, cloakroom, reservation or booking office, platform, any place within the precincts of a railway station or the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

How amount is determined?

The quantum of compensation to be paid is determined by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1990.

Under these Rules last revised in 2017, the amount of compensation payable in case of death is Rs. 8 lakhs. For injuries, the amount depends on the nature of the injury sustained and ranges from Rs.64,000 for fractures of arms and legs to Rs. 8 lakhs for loss of body parts or amputation. Prior to the revision, the amount was half of the present amount, between Rs.32,000 to Rs. 4 lakhs.

The railway administration also provides ex-gratia relief soon after an accident to meet the immediate expenses arising out of the situation.

Applications for compensation are to be made with the Railways Claims Tribunal

Section 125 of the Act lays out the procedure to claim compensation under the Act. The application is to be made to the Railways Claims Tribunal by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss, or any agent duly authorized by such person on this behalf, or by dependent in case of death of a passenger in the accident/incident or guardian, in case of a minor. The Tribunal will decide the application.

Read about Railways Claims Tribunal

In 1890, an enactment known as the Indian Railway Act was legislated and passed by British Parliament. This piece of legislation was aimed at various matters concerning railways. After independence, it was felt that some changes be brought in the Act to fulfil needs of people in the present day. So, maintaining some provisions of Act of 1890, rendering some provisions redundant and replacing new provisions, a new legislation named as The Railways Act, 1989 was enacted, which came into force from 1st July, 1990.

The RCT Act is to provide for the establishment of a Railway Claims Tribunal:

for inquiring into and determining claims against a Railway Administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents or untoward incidents and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Current Affair 2:

Failure to report a POSCO related offence

 

The Karnataka High Court, in Dr. Chandrashekar T B vs. State of Karnataka, refused to quash an FIR against a gynaecologist for failure to report sexual assault on a minor. The Court held that non-reporting is a serious offence and has the potential to snowball into more serious offences.

The allegation against the petitioner was that he has performed the act of medical termination of pregnancy on the victim who was then 12 years and 11 months old and had been subjected to sexual activity. The offence against the petitioner, in particular, was the one punishable under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The court held that “Non-reporting of such cases will further snowball into serious offences”. It relied on the judgement of the apex court in X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, wherein it was held that failure to report would definitely ensure punishment.

Further, in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. DR. Maroti, the apex court held that reporting of offences under Section 19 and punishment for those offences under Section 21 must be of strict compliance to achieve the legal objectives of the POCSO Act.

Current Affair 3:

First loss default guarantee’ (FLDG) arrangement

 

News:

FLDG Norms aim to help the bank/NBFC to protect from the NPA/loan default losses created by the digital lenders to whom they had loaned the money. It’ll require the digital loan companies some of the loan default shop before passing it to the original Bank/NBFC.

For example, if HDFC has given 1 crore loan to any Digital Loan company (ABC). Now this ABC company has given 1 lakh each to 100 clients. Now, if any client shows default in loan,

Before this agreement, the ABC will say HDFC will bear the loss of default.

After the agreement, ABC company also has to bear the loss.

So, in the language of RBI guidelines:

FLDG is a contractual arrangement between a Regulated Entity (Commercial Banks, Cooperative Banks, NBFCs) and Lending Service Providers (LSP)/FinTech or between two Regulated Entities under which the latter (LSP/FinTech) guarantees to compensate the Regulated Entity, loss due to default up to a certain percentage of the loan portfolio of the Regulated Entity, specified upfront.

RBI has approved FLDG cover of maximum up to five percent. This means that the total default guarantee provided by FinTech to their lending partners shall not exceed 5% of the portfolio amount.

Under FLDG agreements, the fintech originates a loan and promises to compensate the Regulated entity up to a pre-decided percentage in case customers fail to repay.

Here Regular entity (HDFC), and LSP (ABC company).

Regular Entities can be:

1. All Commercial Banks (including Small Finance Banks),
2. Primary (Urban) Co-operative Banks, State Co-operative Banks, Central Co-operative Banks; and
3. Non-Banking Financial Companies (including Housing Finance Companies)

Current Affair 4:

Atlantic Declaration

 

News:

Not more than this is required.

<< Previous Next >>