Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Nazara And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)WLC550, 1997(1)WLN426
JUDGMENT V.S. Kokje, J.
1. These cases arise out of an unfortunate accident which took place in the town of Phalodi because of derailment of a goods train which fell down on a public road killing two persons and injuring some others. The heirs and successors of the deceased as also the injured persons themselves, filed claim applications before the Railway Claims Tribunal for short the "Tribunal" hereinafter). On preliminary objections being raised by the Railway Administration, the Tribunal went into the question as to whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the claim applications and held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. These misc. appeals have been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short "the Act" hereinafter) against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants heavily relied on a decision of Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Vijayasankar v. Union of India 1996 (1) CCC 157 (H.C.) and contended that in such matters law should be liberally interpreted in favour of the claimants and it should be held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claims
3. I have heard the learned Counsel and carefully gone through the decision cited by him and the impugned order.
4. Section 13 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. It reads as under:
13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal-(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the, appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,
(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII, of the Railways Act In respect of claims
(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;
(ii) compensation payable under Section 82A of the Railways Act or the Rules made thereunder; and
(b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.
((1a) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under Section 124A of the said Actor the Rules made thereunder.) (2) The provisions of the (Railways Act 1989 (24 of 1989)) and the Rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims tribunal under this Act.
5. It will be clear from the plain language of the Section that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was given from the appointed day to the Tribunals in respect of two areas (i) relating to the responsibility of Railway Administration as Carrbers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act and (ii) in respect of the claims for refund of fares and freight etc.
6. Claims in respect of responsibility as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect to which Tribunals were given Jurisdiction were classified in two categories: (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; and (ii) compensation payable under Section 82A of the Railways Act or the Rules made thereunder. Section 82A of the Railways Act corresponds to the Section 123 and 124 of the new Railways Act, 1989. By amendment in the year 1994 Sub-section (1A) was added to Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and claims in respect of liability under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act', 1989 were also made cognisable by the Tribunals. It has therefore to be seen whether the claim applications filed by the appellants fall within any of the aforesaid categories.
7. It is an admitted fact that the to be claims were not in respect of death or injury to corrected passengers travelling in a Railway Train or in respect of the goods being carried in a Railway Train. C1 (a) of sub Section (1) of Section 13 of the Tribunals Act therefore prima facie should have no application because it relates to the responsibility of the Railway Administration as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act. Admittedly the relationship between the claimants and the railway administration is not that of consigner of and carrier of goods. There is no contract of bailment between the parties which is an essential element of a contract of carrier. In any case Sub-clause (a) of Clause A of Sub-section 1 of Section 13 has no application because the claim is not relating to animals or goods entrusted to the railway administration for carriage by railway. To examine whether the claims fall within the purview of Sub-clause (2) of Sub-section 1 of Section 13 of the Tribunal's Act we have to examine whether it was covered by Section 82A of the Old Railways Act corresponds to those two sections of Railways Act, of 1989 Clause (a) of Section 123 of the Railways Act 1989 defines "accident" to mean an accident of the nature described in Section 124. Section 124 of the Railways Act of 1989 reads as under
124. Extent of liability-When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, 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 has suffered a loss 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 a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.
Explanation-For the purposes of this Section "passenger" includes a railway servant on duty.
8. It would be clear from the plain language of the section that involvement of the train carrying passengers is a must for an "accident" within the meaning of Section 124, above quoted. Derailment of a goods train is not covered by the term "accident" for the purposes of Sections 123 and 124 of the Railways Act. It would also be clear from the plain language of the Section that a person who can claim compensation under Section 124 has to be either a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss or the legal representatives of a passenger whose death was caused because of the accident. The claimants admittedly were neither such passengers nor the deceased on account of whose death the claims have been brought were such passengers. There is no question of any liability arising under Section 124 of the Act.
9. Now the question of liability under Section 124A remains to be examined. Section 124A reads as under:
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 dependent 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 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.
10. In the cases before Tribunal the train involved in the incident was a goods train and not a train carrying passengers}. It was not a case of accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 123(c) therefore do not attracted and consequently Section 124A would also not apply.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellants tried to argue that in Section 124 the words "or other accident to a train" should cover the cases of the claimants. In this context, he relied on the decision in Vijayasankar's Case (supra). I am not impressed by the argument because firstly, Vijayasankar's case clearly stands on a different factual footing. In that case a passenger train was involved and the question was whether an injury received in a fall from the stationery train could be said to be an injury received in an accident to the train. In the present cases, an accident has taken place involving a goods train and there was no contractual relationship with the Railway of the claimants or deceased persons as passengers or consignors of goods. The suggestion in this case of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the words "or other accident to a train" are not qualified by the words "train carrying passengers". As already stated, firstly Section 124 itself have no application because Section 13(1)(a) clearly applies to claims relating to the responsibility of the. Railway Administration as carriers and not independent of a carriers' contract Secondly, the words "other accident to a train or any part of the train carrying passengers" will have to be read conjointly and the words "other accident to a train" cannot be torn out of context from the words "carrying passengers". The words "carrying passengers" would qualify both, the earlier phrases viz. "other accident to a train" as also to the word "any part of the train" occurring immediately prior to them in Section 124.
12. I do not find any force in these appeals, therefore they are hereby dismissed.
13. Before parting with these cases I feel duty bound to recommend to the Union of India a suitable amendment in the Claims Tribunals Act and the Railways Act enabling claimants like the appellants also to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal, for the purpose of redressel. There is no reason why such third parties should suffer in Railway Accidents who are neither passengers or their legal representatives nor consignors of goods should be deprived-of a speedy remedy of the Tribunals and should be compelled to adopt the normal process of law which involves huge amount and interminable delay in disposal of cases.
14. Let a copy of this Judgment/order" be sent to the Ministry of Railways as also to the Secretary to the government of India and Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.