Sabita Devi & Others vs Union of India

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh and learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that claimants namely, Smt. Sabita Devi, Annapurna Kumari (Minor) and Bhabani Kumari (Minor)

have preferred this appeal against the award dated 20.10.2014 in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2012/0021 passed by learned Member (Technical),

Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, whereby though the deceased has been considered to be bonafide passenger as having railway ticket

no.50561427 (II S/F), but since the deceased died due to accidental fall from the train, the learned Tribunal has considered it to be a criminal

negligence resulting in self inflicted injuries, which would fall under the sub-clause (b) of proviso in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and

learned claim Tribunal has completely overlooked the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar &

Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 for considering the incident to be untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act,

1989.

Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that the claim application may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and grant

compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.4 lacs along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e.

26.04.2012 till the actual date of indemnifying the award or Rs.8 lacs in view of the new amendment made in the Railways Accident and Untoward

Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which has been amended in the year 2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2017 by enhancing the same from Rs. 4,00,000/- to

Rs.8,00,000/- and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph- 11 as under:-

...................... For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs 4,00,000. If, after

applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs 8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would

be entitled to Rs 8,00,000. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs 8,00,000 the

compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs 8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus,

according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.

Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has submitted that though the deceased was a bonafide passenger, but he died because of

his own criminal negligence and as such, learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application of the applicants.

Learned counsel for the Railway has thus submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment, as the finding recorded by learned

Tribunal is based upon the materials available on record.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into fact and circumstances of the case, so far the issue with regard to bonafide passenger is

concerned, this Court agree with the finding recorded by learned Tribunal considering the deceased Babulal Saw, who was holding a valid 2nd Class

Super Fast ticket No.50561427 dated 22.11.2011, to be a bonafide passenger.

Since the Babulal Saw boarded Train No.12307 (Howrah -Jodhpur Express) at Howrah and arrived at Koderma on 23.11.2011 and was trying to get

down at Koderma Station, but his leg slipped and fell in the place between the platform and train and thus he lost his life, as such, in view of the

judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Others (Supra), as held at paras -10 and 14 are sufficient to hold that

it was an accidental fall and comes under the provision of Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Paras-10 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment

are profitably quoted hereunder:-

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.

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.

Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed. The Railway is directed to indemnify the compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- or Rs.

4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 26.04.2012 till the date of actual payment, whichever is higher in

favour of the claimants, in view of the new amendment made in the Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which

has been amended in the year 2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2017 and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav

(Supra).

The 50% of Award shall be paid to the wife and 25% of award each to the daughters.

Let the L.C.R. be sent down to the court below forthwith.