Devender Sharma & Anr vs Union Of India

J.R. Midha, J

The appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 28th January, 2010, whereby their application for compensation had been dismissed by

the Railway Claims Tribunal.

On 04th June, 2008, late Sachin was travelling from Dankaur to Delhi by 1TAD Express Train. When the train reached Dadri Railway Station,

Sachin got down for getting water. When the deceased was getting into the coach some hawker came running towards the coach and the deceased

fell down due to the push on the non-platform side along with some other passengers and was hit by 2419 Gomti Express which resulted in fatal

injuries. The deceased was survived by his parents who filed an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal.

The Claims Tribunal held the deceased to be a bona fide passenger as ticket No.46455407 was recovered from him. The Claims Tribunal held that

the deceased was negligent in getting down from the non-platform side and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to compensation.

The law in this regard is well settled that the compensation Section 124-A of the Railways Act is based on the principle of no fault liability and the

compensation cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that the deceased was negligent and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.

Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident†to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying

passengers. The word “passenger†has been defined under Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket.

The Explanation to Section 124A clarifies that the word “passenger†includes a railway servant on duty; and a person who has purchased a valid

ticket for travelling by a train or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. As such, there are three categories of persons

who are defined as passengers: -

(i) a person with a valid ticket to travel; (ii) a person who holds a railway pass to travel and (iii) a person who holds a platform ticket. In each of the

categories, so long as a person is in railway premises or a train, he is taken as a passenger. His or her presence in the railway premises or a train is

taken as authorized. It is for this reason that there are decisions which extend meaning of the term “passenger†to a person who comes to a

platform and gets into a wrong train [Gaurav Kapoor v Union of India, III (2014) ACC 639 (Del)] or a person who purchases a passenger train ticket

and gets into an express train [Santoshi v Union of India, 2014 SCC Online Del 6510 (Del)]; person travelling atop a train and not inside a passenger

compartment [Raj Pal Goel v. Union of India, 2014 ACJ 2315] or a person breaking journey without an endorsement and getting into another train in

continuation of the journey to the destination station [Dwarika Mahto v. Union of India, 2013 ACJ 768]. In all these situations, it is possible to feed

meaning and logic to the decisions only if we recognise that primacy always is the lawful authority to enter the railway premises when the incident of

travel itself becomes secondary.

In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, a lady fell down while trying to enter the train and was run over by the train.

Railways contended that the deceased was negligent and there was no fault of Railways. The Supreme Court held that Section 124-A lays down strict

liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who

was at fault. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell

down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an “accidental

falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengersâ€. Hence, it is an “untoward incident†as defined in Section 123(c) of the

Railways Act.

No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train

carrying passengersâ€, the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the

train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so.

Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and

wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the

one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred………

It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in

consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words,

beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation………………………

xxx xxx xxx

In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying

passengers†in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation

in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot

afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large

number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence,

in our opinion, the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers†includes accidents when a bona

fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process.

In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of

Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.

xxx xxx xxx

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no fault on the part

of the Railways, or that there was contributory negligence, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected.â€​

(Emphasis Supplied)

In Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, a passenger travelling by Awadh Express with a valid ticket fell down near Magarwara Railway

Station which resulted in his death. Railways contended that the deceased was negligent in standing at the door near Magarwara Railway Station

where the train does not stop. The Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the claim which was set aside by the High Court in appeal on the ground that the

deceased was negligent. The Supreme Court held that the negligence of the deceased will not have any effect on the liability to pay compensation

under Section 124A. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:

“7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation

under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case

of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he

fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is

absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it

were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the

compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act.

xxx xxx xxx

It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was,

therefore, clearly a “passenger†for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under

Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway

Administration. But the proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case

death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e).

Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railways that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-

inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he

died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental.

The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the

train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very

uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act

envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a

running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the

Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.

(Emphasis Supplied)

In Harvinder Kaur v. Union of India, 2012 ACJ 854, a passenger died due to accidental slip from the train on account of heavy rush of passengers

and sudden jerk of the train. Railways contended that the passenger fell down because he attempted to get down from a moving train at an

unscheduled stoppage. This Court, relying on Jameela (supra), held that even the case of a passenger, who might have been negligently standing on

the footboard, was covered by the definition of “untoward incidentâ€​ and was entitled to compensation.

In Union of India Owning Southern Railway v. The Addl. Registrar, Railways Claims Tribunal, (2012) 5 Mad LJ 562, the passenger travelled in

Chennai-Mangalore Express from Chennai to Karur. The train had an unscheduled halt at Veeravakiyam Railway Station. After some time, the train

started moving. The deceased fell down from the moving train and died on the spot. The Madras High Court, following Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar

(supra) and Jameela (supra), held that the dependants of the deceased were entitled for compensation. Relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: -

“27. Thus, from the above analysis of Sections 2 (29), 123, 123(c), 123(2) &124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, if a bona fide passenger

dies or sustain injuries, it will be an “untoward incidentâ€, and irrespective of his negligence or contributory negligence, the Railway is

liable to pay compensation to the victims or the Dependants of the deceased as prescribed under the Act. So, it introduced principle of

“no fault liabilityâ€​. It is also “Rule of strict liabilityâ€​.â€​

xxx xxx xxx

The deceased was a bonafide Railway passenger. He fell down from the moving train from the compartment and died. There is no

evidence from the Railways that he had attempted suicide, inflicted injury due to his own criminal act or he was drunk or he is an insane

nor there was any natural cause or he suffered diseases. The Railways has not established that his death falls under any one of the clauses

from (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the Apex Court's decision in Prabhakaran Vijayakumar(supra) and Jameela

(supra) the stand of the Railways that he died due to negligence (of course, it was not established) is of no avail to Railways because the

case before us is an “untoward incident†and Sections 123 and 124-A incorporates the Rule of Strict Liability or in other words, no

fault liability. So, in such circumstances, the negligence pleaded by the Railways, even, if proved is to be ignored. The principles laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakaran Vijayakumar (supra) and Jameela (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. Since

respondents 2 and 3 are dependants of the deceased, they are eligible for compensation.â€​

(Emphasis Supplied)

Following the above judgments, this Court holds that the incident in question is an untoward incident and the appellants are entitled to the

compensation from the Railways.

The next question which arises for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to compensation according to the Railway Accident and

Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 or according to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules,

2016.

The Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 has been amended by Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents

(Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 01st January, 2017. By the said amendment, the compensation in all the categories have been doubled

as compared to Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.

In Rathi Menon v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714, Rathi Menon, a Commerce graduate of 22 years, secured a job in Bangalore and was called

for an interview at Trichur. On her way back to Bangalore on 3rd September, 1999, she boarded the Island Express (bound for Bangalore) at 8.00

P.M. from Palakkad Railway Station. After the train started moving and when it collected momentum, her ill-luck prompted her to have a face wash

for which she moved to the wash basin situated next to the door of the train. While washing her face the train jerked violently at a turning and in that

impact she was thrown off the running train during the night. Her spinal cord was ruptured and she turned a paraplegic and remained immovable

forever. After she fell down, the wheels of the train ran over her right arm severing it from the shoulder point forever. The train, not knowing what it

did to one of its lawful and innocent passengers, continued its running leaving the paraplegic on the track itself on that dreadful night. It was

physiologically impossible for the young lady to move her leg from the position where she fell. Her right leg happened to remain on the rail-track, and

unless a Good Samaritan had passed by that track during the night she had to remain there unmoved. As none like that came, the poor female human

being remained on the track bleeding and unattended by anyone. Alas, within half an hour another train came along the same track which, without

knowing that a badly mauled human being was lying ahead, ran over her right leg causing a sudden amputation of that leg also. Thus, within the span

of less than an hour, she became a one-handed and one-legged paraplegic. All those disasters happened during the night of 3rd September, 1996.

While she remained on the track unattended by any one, she happened to be spotted by an engine driver who was shunting a railway engine. He got

her removed from that scene to the district hospital, and then to a Medical College Hospital where she had to undergo a long period of hospitalization

and remained immovable forever.

The Railway Claim Tribunal awarded Rs.6 lakh along with interest @ 15% per annum which was challenged before the Kerala High Court on the

ground that the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation beyond the amount prescribed in the Railway Accident and Untoward incidents

(Compensation) Rules 1990. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation amount. The Supreme Court

reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the order of the Claims Tribunal.T he Supreme Court held that the

compensation amount has to be determined according to the Rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation.

Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“12. As the above facts are not disputed by the Railway Administration the appellant was relieved of the burden to prove those facts

averred in her claim petition. Thus, the only question which remained for the Claims Tribunal to decide was regarding the amount of

compensation payable to her. Now the only question remaining is whether the High Court was so helpless that learned Judges could not

confirm the amount awarded to her by the Claims Tribunal.

xxx xxx xxx

The liability of the Railway Administration in such a case would be to pay compensation, but the extent of such compensation is as may

be prescribed which means prescribed by the rules made under the Act. Section 129 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make

such rules.

The Railway Accident Compensation Rules 1990 (for short the Rules) were made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred on it by Section 129 of the Act. Rule 3(1) says that the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be as

specified in the Schedule. The Rules as well as the Schedule were amended with effect from 1.11.1997. After the amendment Rule 3(2) reads

thus:

“3.(2) The amount of compensation payable for an injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule but which in the opinion of

the claims Tribunal, is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do work, shall be Rupees four lakhs.â€​

Item No.2 of Part III of the Schedule relates to amputation below shoulder with stump less than 8 from tip of acromion for which an

amount of Rs.3.20 lakhs is shown as the compensation.

Item 20 in Part III of the Schedule relates to amputation below knee with stump exceeding three and a half inch but not exceeding five

inches, for which an amount of Rupees two lakhs is shown as compensation.

Before the said amendment of the Rules and the Schedule which came into effect on 1.11.1997 the above amounts were respectively two

lakhs (instead of rupees four lakhs) and 1.40 lakhs (instead of 3.20 lakhs) and one lakh (instead of two lakhs). Such amounts were revised

by the Central Government in 1990. The revision of the rates was made after 8 years and thus the new rates were incorporated by amending

the Schedule.

xxx xxx xxx

The collocation of the words “as may be prescribed†in Section 124-A of the Act is to be understood as to mean “as may be

prescribed from time to timeâ€. The relevance of the date of untoward incident is that the right to claim compensation from the Railway

Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. The statute did not fix the amount of compensation, but left it to be determined

by the Central Government from time to time by means of rules. This delegation to the Central Government indicates that it was difficult for

Parliament to fix the amount because compensation amount is a varying phenomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous

position to ascertain what would be the just and reasonable compensation in respect of a myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into

account very many factors. What the legislature wanted was that the victim of the accident must be paid compensation and the amount must

represent a reality which means the amount should be a fair and reasonable compensation. The Government has the better wherewithals to

ascertain and fix such amount. It is for the said reason that Parliament left it to the Government to discharge that function. Sections 124 and

124-A of the Act speak the same language that “the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensationâ€. As pointed above, it is

the liability of the Railway Administration to “pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribedâ€. Hence the time of ordering

payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of the compensation which is prescribed by the rules to be disbursed to the

claimant.

xxx xxx xxx

………… The provisions are not intended to give a gain to the Railway Administration but they are meant to afford just and

reasonable compensation to the victims as a speedier measure. If a person files a suit the amount of compensation will depend upon what

the court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence when he goes before the Claims Tribunal claiming

compensation the determination of the amount should be as on the date of such determination.â€​

The Supreme Court further held that where the appeals are pending before the High Court, the scale of compensation shall depend on the date on

which the High Court delivers the judgment. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane

also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application

immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on

the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant

approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of

many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of

the figure indicated on the date of the accident.

From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the Rules prescribed at the time of making the

order for payment of the compensation.â€​

(Emphasis Supplied)

The Supreme Court explained the rationale for granting compensation as per prescribed Rules at the time of making order as under:

“24.…….. when you pay the compensation in terms of money it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent

value.

xxx xxx xxx

27………Rupee value is not an unchanging unit in the monitory system. Students of economic history know that currency value remained

static before the Second World War. But the post World War II witnessed the new phenomenon of vast fluctuations in money value of

currency notes in circulation in each nation. When the U.S. Dollar has registered a steep upward rise, currencies in many other countries

made downward slip. What was the value of one Hundred rupees twenty years ago is vastly different from what it is today. This substantial

change has caused its impact on the cost of living also.

28……… what you were to pay ten years ago to one person cannot be the same if it is paid today in the same figure of currency notes. It

is for the purpose of meeting the reality that Central Government changed the figures.â€​

(Emphasis Supplied)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court and Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, following Rathi Menon (supra), have applied the amended schedule

as on the date of adjudication in Union of India v. Aggala Dilleswara Rao, 2006 ACJ 1470; Pramath Kumar Jena v. Union of India, AIR 2012 Ori 32

and Radha Yadav v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 420 respectively.

It is well settled that the appeal is the continuation of the claim petition and the power of the Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the

Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir v. Sardar Gurpreet Singh, 2014 (10) SCC 702.

The appeal is allowed and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rathi Menon (supra), this Court holds that the appellants are

entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lakh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the compensation application i.e. 12th January,

2009 till realisation.

The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the

name of UCO Bank A/c Devender Sharma within six weeks.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants shall furnish Form 15G of the Income Tax Rules to counsel for the respondent

within two weeks so that no TDS is deducted from the compensation amount.

List for disbursement of the compensation amount on 01st November, 2017.

The appellants shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing along with passbooks of their savings bank accounts near the place of

their residence, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card. The concerned bank, in which the appellants have a savings bank accounts, shall make the

endorsement on the passbooks that no cheque book and/or debit card has been issued and if the same has already been issued, the same be cancelled.

The concerned bank shall also make an endorsement on the passbook of the savings bank accounts of the appellants that no cheque book and/or debit

card shall be issued without the permission of this Court.

Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signatures of the Court Master.