Union of India vs K. Govindammal, Kannan and M. Gnanambal

Honourable Mrs. Justice Aruna Jagadeesan

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 5.06.2009 made in OA. No. 47/2006 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai

Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant/2nd Respondent herein. The claimants, who are

the parents and wife of the deceased K.Murugan, filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the

deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased was working as a Mason and he used to visit Mitta Mula Halli Village periodically and return on the

next day after finishing his work. As usual on 6.3.2006, the deceased left the house at Coimbatore to his native place. His parents later came to

know about the incident from the Railway Police Authorities, Salem on evening of 6.3.2006 that the deceased while travelling in Train No. 2676

Express in between Coimbatore and Morappur, while taking over cellphone peeping his head outside the compartment, due to speed of the train,

he was thrown out and fell down in a 7 ft. ditch with his head facing down at KM-328/35-33. The persons residing nearby the place of the

accident informed the same to P. Balasubramanian, points man, who in turn informed the same to the Station Master, Magnestie ""C"" Cabin, who in

turn reported the matter to the Deputy Station Manager, Salem Junction.

The Appellant in the reply statement opposed the claim made by the claimant. It was admitted that the deceased travelled in the Train No. 2626

Express between Coimbatore and Morappur and fallen down at KM-328/35-33 and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased while

travelling in the train was talking over mobile phone by standing near the entrance of the train i.e near door way and due to jerk and jolting of the

train, he had fallen down at the said KM. Therefore, the accident is due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased and it would not attract the

provisions of ''accidental falling from train'' u/s 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the Act). The deliberate action of

the deceased would tantamount to ''self-inflicted injury'' u/s 124(A) (b) of the Act.

The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence on record and after hearing the contention of both the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-

as compensation to the claimants by the impugned order, which is challenged in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims

Tribunal Act 54 of 1987.

Mr. T.S.Rajamohan, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the claimants had no personal knowledge about the facts and the

statements made in the claim application appear to be hearsay. It is submitted that the accident occurred only on account of the negligence and

carelessness of the deceased, as he deliberately travelled near the door way of the compartment and while he was talking over mobile phone by

peeping his head outside the compartment, he fell down. The learned counsel would further submit that the said act of the deceased would

tantamount to ''self-inflicted injury'' and the Tribunal committed an error in not considering above said aspects and in awarding compensation to the

claimant.

Mr. T. Rajamohan, the learned counsel for the Respondents strenuously contended that the evidence placed on record clearly disclosed that the

deceased died while travelling in the train and therefore, this would come within the ambit and meaning of ''untoward incident'' and the same would

not tantamount to ''self-inflicted injury''. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court

reported in 2008 4 MLJ 323 SC (Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar).

This court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

Section 124A of the Act provides as follows:-

Compensation on account of untoward incidents:- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there

has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or

the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall,

notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for

loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said

untoward incident.

Explanation: For the purpose of this Section, ''passenger'' includes:-

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a

victim of an untoward incident.

By the Amendment Act 28 of 1994, clause (c)(2) was inserted in Section 123 of the Act, bringing the ''accidental falling of any passenger from

a train carrying passengers'' into the definition of ''untoward incident.''

From the above provision of the Railways Act, the points which are to be determined are that the person, who is claiming compensation for any

loss, damage, injury or death, was a bona fide passenger having a valid ticket and sustained injury or death, as the case may be, in an ''untoward

incident''. ''Untoward incident'' should not fall within the exceptions (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124A of the Act and the ''accidental fall'' would

include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action, and he would be covered by ''untoward incident'' as specified in

Section 123(c) of the Act. Therefore, while boarding the train, due to jerk of the train if a person falls from the train and sustains injury or dies, it

cannot be held that due to his own negligence or carelessness he sustained injury or died and the burden lies on the Railways to prove that the

person met with an accident or death due to his own negligence thereby not entitled to compensation from the Railways.

In the case of Union of India Vs. Kurukundu Balkrishnaiah (2004 ACJ 529 AP), a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court answered to

the following reference whether a passenger trying to board or alight from a running train or standing near the door, jumped from the compartment,

crossing the railway track or leaning out of the carriage; and during the course of such circumstance had fallen down and was either injured or had

died, was entitled to compensation from the Railways u/s 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court while answering the reference has held that

(1) where a bona fide passenger dies in an untoward incident or sustain injuries, as the case may be, Railways to pay compensation without

dispute, unless the death of the deceased or the injuries sustained by the injured, would fall within the exceptions (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section

124A of the Act; (2) accidental falling would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action, and hence they

would be covered by untoward incident as specified in Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. To attract any of the exceptions u/s 124A proviso, may have

to be decided in each and every case and general propositions cannot be laid down in this regard in view of the complexity and diversity of the

illustrations and the provisions or the Rules.

Falling from train to death due to one''s own negligence does not come within any exception enumerated u/s 124(A) of the Act. In the absence

of malicious intent or mens rea, such negligence can neither be held as criminal act u/s 124(A)(c). In Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI),

the Honourable Supreme Court has held thus:

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 124A. 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.

In the present case, it has been proved from the investigation of the Railway Police itself that the victim died of the accident due to fall from the

train. In view of existence of First Information Report, inquest report, postmortem report and the final report submitted by the Railway Police all in

one voice concluded the case as an accidental fall from the train and without any material to indicate or infer any foul play or any collusive act, the

Railways cannot contend that it is not an accidental fall from the train. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in

clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A of the Act. Therefore, the case of the claimant would fall under the category of ''untoward

incident'' as defined u/s 123 of the Act.

The findings of the Tribunal regarding the factum of incident to death of the deceased and the claimants are the dependents of the deceased are

not under challenge. The only contention is as to whether the death of the deceased would come within the ambit and purview of the expression

''untoward incident'' or it would come within the meaning of terminology ''self-inflicted injury''.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent with reference to the provisions of Section 124A of the Act that railway

administration is required to lead necessary evidence to establish that its case is coming within any of the exceptions stated in proviso to Section

124A. The section lays down a rule that whenever an untoward incident occurs in the course of working of a railway which irrespective of any

wrongful act, neglect or default and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law railway administration is liable to pay compensation as may

be prescribed in case of any injury to the passenger or to dependants of deceased victim who met with an untoward incident. Thus, unless railway

administration can categorically point out that the case is within any of the above exceptions covered by the provision it cannot avoid its

responsibility to pay the statutory compensation.

On a perusal of the relevant provisions referred supra, it is manifest that the said provisions are a part of the beneficial and welfare statute,

these provisions are intended for the benefit of the person who has died in such contingency. The Railways Act has defined the term ''untoward

incident''. By perusal of the said definition of ''untoward incident'', it is eloquent that the said definition is an inclusive definition and it also includes

an accidental fall of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. When a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so,

that would certainly come within the purview of the accidental fall from a train. When we say that the provisions are part of a welfare statute, then

the rules of interpretation mandate that the interpretation of the said provision shall be made in consonance with the object of the Act and for the

benefit of the person for whom the Act was made. The beneficial or a welfare statute should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation.

The Honourable Supreme Court in 2008 4 MLJ 323 SC (Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar), cited supra involving similar question

of interpretation of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 has observed thus:-

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 above mentioned two interpretations, i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its

purpose, should be preferred.

The conspectus of the above discussions would lead to the conclusion that if a section in a welfare statute is reasonably capable of two

constructions then that construction should be preferred which furthers the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to those in whose interest the

Act may have been passed and the doubt if any should be resolved in their favour. So in a case of an exception which curtails the operation of

beneficent legislation, the court in case of doubt would construe it narrowly so as not to readily expand the area of scope of exception.

The proviso to Section 124A of the Act carves out an exception for payment of compensation and the expression ''self-inflicted injury'' is a

part of proviso carving out exception, the same shall be construed narrowly.

Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the contention that a passenger deliberately travelled by peeing his head outside the

compartment and he did so at his own risk and carelessness, the Appellant would not be responsible as it would amount to ''self-inflicted injury''

would be stretching too far the expression ''self-inflicted injury''. ''self-inflicted injury'' would mean injuries which are self inflicted by the person

when he is capable of rational voluntary action. The same would be a wound inflicted by one''s self. When a person accidentally falls from the train

because of some jerk or slipped down while boarding, etc. in such circumstances it would not amount to a ''self-inflicted injury'', but an ''untoward

incident''. Once it is held that the fall of the deceased was a result of untoward incident, the claimant would be entitled for compensation.

For the reasons stated herein above, I do not find any merits in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the impugned award is liable to be

confirmed. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The impugned award is confirmed. No costs. The Tribunal apportioned the

award amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- between the claimants as (1) 1st claimant/mother is entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/-, (2) 2nd claimant/father is entitled

to Rs. 1,50,000/- and the 3rd claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is seen from the records that the entire award amount with interest had

already been deposited by the Appellant on 21.10.2009 with the Indian Bank, High Court Branch. By order dated 15.2.2010, each of the

claimants were permitted to withdraw 50 per cent of their respective shares, which they have withdrawn. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-

is lying with the Indian Bank, High Court Branch. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance of 50 per cent of their respective share with

accrued proportionate interest. No costs.