Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
General Manager, South Central ... vs K. Narayana Rao on 18 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: II(2000)ACC41, 1999(6)ALD591, 2000(1)ALT645, AIR 2000 ANDHRA PRADESH 53, (1999) 6 ANDHLD 591, (2000) 1 TAC 323, (2000) 1 ANDH LT 645, (2000) 2 ACC 41
Author: C.V.N. Sastri
Bench: C.V.N. Sastri
JUDGMENT
1. When the CMPs. came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for both parties addressed arguments in the main appeal itself and accordingly the appeal itself is being finally disposed of.
2. This is an unfortunate case where a lady passenger, aged about 49 years, who was travelling in the second class railway compartment from Madras to Guntakal fell down from the train near Gooty Railway Station and she was crushed between the train and the platform resulting in her instantaneous death. The husband and the daughter of the deceased, who were also travelling in the same train, have preferred a claim for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Along with the claim application, they filed the relevant documents like the first information report, inquest report, the original copy of the ticket coupon, the original copy of the EFT (Excess Fare Ticket) of the deceased and also the salary certificate of the deceased who was employed as a nursing tutor.
3. The respondent-Railway filed a counter opposing the claim mainly on the ground that the death occurred on account of the negligence and careless act of the deceased who attempted to step down from the moving train before taking a step on the platform at Gooty Station and as such no compensation is payable in view of proviso (b) to Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. Though the Railway also took a formal objection putting the applicants to strict proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, it was, however, admitted in the counter that II Class Ticket No.80584033 was issued to the deceased, her husband and daughter at Chennai on 11-9-1997.
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal, on a consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that it was a case of accidental fall and the deceased died on account of the accidental fall from the train. On the said finding, the Tribunal allowed the application and awarded Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to Applicant No.1, i.e., the husband of the deceased. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in GMKSRT Corpn., Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas, , the Tribunal directed the Railway to pay Rs.50,000/- to the applicant No.1 by cheque and the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit for a period of five years permitting Applicant No.1 to draw the interest accruing thereon. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Railway.
5. Sri T. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant, assailed the order of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal approached the matter casually and allowed the application without conducting any enquiry, without recording any evidence and without properly considering the various contentions raised by the appellant.
6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants, on the other hand, tried to sustain the order of the Tribunal and submitted that there are no valid grounds whatsoever for interference.
7. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the Tribunal, after referring to the pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues for consideration:
(1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased.
(2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
(3) Whether the accidential fall as alleged is not an untoward incident.
(4) To what relief.
On Issue No.1 the Tribunal noted that the second application i.e., the daughter stated before the Tribunal that she is married and that she does not claim any compensation. It was, therefore, held that Applicant No.1 is the only dependent of the deceased. On Issue No.2 the Tribunal, after examining the ticket and the other documents filed by the applicants, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket. On Issue No.3, the Tribunal, on a perusal of the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that it was a case of accidential fall and the deceased died on account of the accidental fall from the train. In the light of the findings given by it on Issue Nos.1 to 3, the lower Court held on Issue No.4 that Application No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly allowed the application.
8. The question for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference in appeal. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989, deals with the liability of Railway administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123 contains the definitions; The said section, insofar as it is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows:
"123. Definitions :- In this Chapter, unless the contest otherwise requires -
(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in Section 124;
(b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely: --
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;
(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;
(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependent on the deceased passenger.
(c) "untoward incident" means -
(1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act, 1987, 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 accident falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
Section 124 deals with the extent of liability. It may not be relevant for the purpose of this case. Section 124-A, which deals with compensation on account of 'untoward incidents' is material for our purpose. It reads as follows:
"124-A. Compensation on Account of Untoward Incident:-- 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 kilted 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, 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 purposes 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."
Section 125 provides that an application for compensation under Section 124 or Section 124-A may be made to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, provides for the establishment of Railway Claims Tribunals for enquiring into and determining the various types of claims against a railway administration including the claims for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents or untoward incidents and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
9. It is not in dispute that the present claim made by the respondents was made within the prescribed time. As such we may straightaway go to Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act which deals with the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. It is useful to extract the said Section.
"18. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal :--(1) The Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its enquiry.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall decide every application as expeditiousiy as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents, written representations and affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced.
(3) The Claims Tribunal shall have, for the purpose of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examing him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) reviewing its decisions;
(g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte ;
(i) any other matter which may be prescribed."
It is thus clear from Section 18 that the Claims Tribunal is not bound to follow the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure and it has the power to regulate its own procedure. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 specially provides that the Claims Tribunal shall decide every application as expeditionary as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of the documents, written representations and affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. I do not, therefore, find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal in the present case acted very casually and arbitrarily allowed the application without conducting proper enquiry. As already stated above, the Tribunal considered the pleadings, framed appropriate issues and recorded findings on every issue after consideration of the entire material on record.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that whereas according to the pleading in the claim application, the case of the applicants was that when the train neared the Gooty Railway Station, the train slowed down considerably and the deceased, who was in the bath room, emerged from the same and because of the jerks resulting after brakes are appliced to the train, the deceased slipped out of the door-way that was open and was jammed between the platform and the train resulting in severe injuries and accidental death, according to the first information report as well as the inquest report, the deceased, while getting down from the train, fell down and jammed between the platform and the train and as such it is a clear case of death resulting from her own negligence. Even going by the first information report and the inquest report, it is clearly a case of accidental fall while getting down from the train and the case, therefore, clearly falls under "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123(c) which includes the accidental fall of any passenger from a train carrying passengers and the liability of the Railway is, therefore, clearly attracted. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a self-inflicted injury or death resulting from any criminal act on the part of the deceased attracting the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, sought to draw a distinction between the case of the accidental fall of any passenger from a train carrying passengers and the fall of a passenger who was alighting from the train after completion of her journey. I do not, however, find any force in the said submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. I am satisfied that the Tribunal was perfectly justified incoming to the conclusion that it is a case of accidental fall and the deceased died on account of the accidental fall from the train and as such the Railway is liable for payment of compensation. It is not in dispute that if the Railway is held liable, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper compensation as the same is statutorily fixed.