Pinki Devi vs Union of India

Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—Heard the parties. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2010, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in the Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2003/8036 RCT/RNCs [Old No. OA (IIU)-8036/08], filed by the appellants, whereby and whereunder the compensation claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been rejected.

The case of the appellants in brief is that the deceased-Dinesh Kumar Singh was returning his home city-Bokaro from Howrah by 315 up Howrah-Chakradharpur-Bokaro in Sleeper-1 Coach, Berth No. 15. On 28.4.2002, he slipped and fell down from the running train at the end of the Platform No. 1, Bishunpur Railway Station and due to the injuries sustained by him, he died at the spot.

The appellant No. 1, being wife of late Dinesh Kumar Singh, has filed a petition u/s 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 for grant of compensation in lieu of death of her husband which occurred due to train accident. The learned Tribunal, after considering evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the deceased got down from the train at Bishunpur Railway Station to fetch water but at the time of boarding in train, he fell down as the train proceeded ahead and got momentum. Due to jerk and jolt, he fell down at the end of Platform No. 1. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased himself is responsible for his death because he was trying to board in the Train while the train started running and, therefore, death of the deceased cannot be considered to be untoward as defined u/s 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Learned counsel has submitted that the deceased was having valid ticket and he was a passenger in the said train, is not disputed. The evidence adduced also indicate that he was trying to board in the train and he was catching hold bar of the compartment. In the meantime, speed of the train swung and due to jerk and jolt, he fell down and sustained injuries and died.

The case of present appellant squarely covered by the Judgment reported in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, , 2007(4) T.A.C. 879 (All.) [Union of India v. Mohd. Amir Khan] and 2001 (2) TAC. 501 (AP) [Union of India v. Uggina Srinivasa Rao]. Learned counsel has referred paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 15 and 17 of the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra). On relying upon the aforesaid Judgments, it is submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench is liable to be set aside and the compensation as required u/s 124A and Rules 3 and 4 of the Railways Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 is liable to be paid.

Learned counsel appearing for the Railways has submitted that the deceased himself was responsible for the injuries leading to his death. The evidence on record clearly indicates that he was having water bottle in his one hand and trying to catch the train when it started running. Somehow he held bar of the compartment and by putting one leg on footboard, tried to get in and in the meanwhile he lost his balance and fell down and, therefore, it comes within the Exception (b) of Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989.

I have gone through the materials placed before me and it is not in dispute that the deceased was having valid ticket and reservation in sleeper coach. He got down at Bishunpur Railway Station and again tried to board in the train. But at the relevant point of time, the train proceeded ahead and due to jerk and jolt, he fell down and sustained injuries leading to his death. Their Lordship in the Judgment reported in Union of India Vs. Uggina Srinivasa Rao, , has held in paragraphs 10, 11 and 55 as under--

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 passengers. 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 passengers'', 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 vide Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , B.D. Shetty and Others Vs. M/s Ceat Ltd. and Another, , Transport Corporation of India Vs. Employees'' State Insurance Corpn. and Another, .

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant 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.

The facts and circumstances as indicated in the Judgment cited above, squarely covers facts arid circumstances of the present case and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2010, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in the Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2003/8036 RCT/RNC''s Old No. OA (IIU)-8036/08, stands set aside and the appellants, who are legal heirs of late Dinesh Prasad are directed to be paid Rs. 4 Lacs as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the application till the date of final payment. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.