Ranjeet vs Union Of India

J.R. Midha, J

The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 16th December, 2009 whereby the appellantâ€​s application for compensation has been dismissed.

On 4th July, 2008, the appellant fell down from Gorakh Dham Express bearing train No.2556 on platform no.2 of Kishan Ganj Railway Station, and

he suffered grievous injuries which resulted in amputation of right leg below knee level. The appellant was aged about 12 years at the time of the

accident.

The Railways did not dispute that the appellant fell down from Gorakh Dham Express on 4th July, 2008 but the claim was contested on the ground

that the appellant was negligent as he was travelling on the footboard of the compartment and the appellant was travelling without ticket and,

therefore, was not a bona fide passenger.

The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the appellant did not hold a valid ticket at the relevant time and therefore, was not a

bona fide passenger.

Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the appellant was aged about 12 years at the time of the accident and he lost

the ticket during the journey.

The legal position with respect to the untoward incident inside the railway station is well settled. 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 recognize 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 5, 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 t,he 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)

The appellant is present in Court and his condition has been seen. He has suffered amputation of right leg below knee. Dr. K.J.S. Bansal, Chief

Medical Officer (Incharge) of Medical and Health Centre, Delhi High Court has examined the appellant today and issued a certificate according to

which the amputation stump below knee with stump exceeding is 20 cms (7.8â€) and the appellantâ€s case falls in category No.22 of the Schedule

under Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. The certificate of the Chief Medical Officer

(Incharge), Medical and Health Centre, Delhi High Court is taken on record.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and considering that the appellant was a minor child aged about 12 years and was travelling

alone from Shakur Basti to New Delhi in the train and he fell down from Gorakh Dham Express bearing train No.2556 on Kishan Ganj Railway

Station, platform no.2 and suffered amputation of his right leg and lost his ticket during the journey, the appellantâ€s fall from the train on 04th July,

2008 is held to be an untoward incident and he is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- under category No.22 of the Schedule under Rule 3 of the

Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016.

The appeal is allowed and compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application for

compensation from the Claims Tribunal i.e. 18th August, 2008 is awarded to the appellant against the respondent.

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 Ranjeet within four weeks.

List for disbursement of the amount on 16th January, 2018.

The appellant present in Court submits that he has savings bank A/c No.3221131000233 with Canara Bank, Jigani Road, Bangalore â€" 560105

(PAN No.CYFPR9121N).

Canara Bank, Jigani Road, Bangalore Branch is directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the appellant and if the same have

already been issued, the Canara Bank is directed to cancel the same. Appellant shall produce the copy of this order before the Canara Bank

whereupon the bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to appellant without the permission

of this Court. Appellantâ€​s counsel shall produce the original passbook with the necessary endorsement before this Court on the next date of hearing.

Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.