Allahabad High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) Through General ... vs Smt. Vidyawati Wife Of Late Dev Narain ... on 29 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 ALLAHABAD 124, 2008 (3) ALJ 442, 2008 (6) AKAR (NOC) 917 (ALL.) = AIR 2008 ALLAHABAD 124, 2008 A I H C 2362, (2008) 65 ALLINDCAS 636 (ALL), 2008 (65) ALLINDCAS 636, (2009) 3 ACJ 1630, (2008) 71 ALL LR 596, (2008) 2 ALL WC 2081
Author: Amitava Lala
Bench: Amitava Lala, Shishir Kumar
JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.
1. This appeal is arising out of an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal. Gorakhpur Bench, dated 12th October, 2007. By the order impugned the Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the claimants on account of death of the deceased. The deceased was a police personnel, who was travelling by train having valid ticket. The Tribunal gave the following finding in coining to the conclusion:
6.1 Original ticket for journey has been filed. It is for the correct stations and dale as per application. Ticket was found from the person of the deceased. Although, respondent stated 'hat its genuineness was to be proved by applicant, tribunal carina, accept this plea. Original ticket was filed on 15.5.2004 and respondent could very well have checked it up to 12.6.07 most diligently. In absence of any specific defence by respondent, the deceased is held to be a bonafide passenger at the time of untoward incident.
6.2 Deceased fell down from train due to pushing by other passengers who were in large number. Possibly, he could not get a seat to sit and had to stand. Although uncomfortable. such journey is undertaken by quite a significant number of passengers overlooking their comfort and convenience. Even fall from footboard at the entrance of coach is an accidental fall because footboard is pari of coach. Second issue is allowed i.e. accident in this application was an untoward incident as per Railway Rules for compensation.
The appellant contended before this Court that this is a first appeal lies to the High Court under Section 123 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. However, we are not concerned about the maintainability when such law available but with the feasibility of admission on merit. Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 1989 speaks as follows:
124-A. 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 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.
The learned Counsel contended before this Court that 'untoward incident' means as follows:
Section 123(c) "untoward incident" means-
(1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of Sub-section (I) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant since untoward incident includes "the accidental tailing of any passenger from a train carrying passengers." it can he construed as self-inflicted injury as per proviso to Section 124-A of the Act for which the claimants are riot entitled to claim any compensation. He also said standing on the foot board is a punishable offence by virtue of Section 154 of the Act.
According to us, the appellant has proceeded with a misconception of law. The deceased was a bonafide passenger. In spite of having valid ticket when a passenger fall down from the railway due to an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation. There is gulf difference between untoward incident and self inflicted untoward incident. Without any specific proof an untoward incident cannot be said as self inflicted.
The learned Counsel stated that there is a difference between reserved compartments and unreserved compartments. Facilities of reserved compartment cannot be given to the passengers of unreserved compartments. We are of view that a reserved compartments means the seats of the valid ticket holders are reserved, but unreserved compartment means seat are unreserved, who will come first he will occupy. In case of unreserved compartments Railways are issuing tickets irrespective of accommodations in case of unreserved seats. Even at the time of return of tickets without journey, certain amounts are being deducted by the Railways. Therefore, Railways are duty bound to discharge the responsibilities. In such situation it does not lie on the mouth of the Railways that as because the unreserved compartment was overloaded and the passenger, who was standing on the foot board, sustained death, it can be construed as self inflicted incident. This submission cannot lie on the mouth of a public authority of a developed or developing country. This is also a disgraceful submission that the deceased could have board on the next train. Therefore, the balance of convenience does not support the contentions of the cause. Hence, we cannot admit the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without imposing any costs.