Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Late Bassappa, vs Union Of India By General Manager South ... on 11 December, 2015
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
M.F.A. No.30503/2008 [RCT]
BETWEEN:
1. MALLAPPA
S/O LATE BASSAPPA,
AGE: ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,
R/O. SAWOOR TQ YADGIR,
DIST: GULBARGA.
2. BASAVALINGA
S/O. LATE BASSAPPA,.
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,
R/O SAWOOR, TQ YADGIR,
DIST: GULBARGA. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV.
FOR SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR C.M. ADV. FOR A1.
A2 IS SINCE MINOR REPTD. BY R1)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH CENTAL RAILWAY,
RAIL NILAYAM,
SECUNDRABAD. ... RESPONDENT
(SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
***
2
MFA FILED IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAYS ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.8.08
PASSED IN OA NO.5/05 ON THE FILE OF THE TECHNICAL/
MEMBER, RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
Date of reserving the Judgement : 27/11/2015.
Date of Pronouncing the Judgement : 11/12/2015.
JUDGMENT
The appellants before this Court are the children of late Basappa, who is alleged to have been involved in an untoward incident and their claim has been rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench by its Judgment dated 14.08.2008, rendered in O.A. No.5/2005.
2. The accident pertains to the year 2004. The appellants are the original claimants 2 and 3 and the 1st claimant was one Kalamma, wife of deceased Basappa. The said Kalamma is stated to have died during the proceedings and that the appellants are the only 3 surviving heirs of the said Basappa. The above appeal is preferred under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Railways Act, 1988.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The facts according to the appellants are; It is contended that the father of the appellants had fallen to the death at KM No.627/8-9 on upline between Yadgir and Lingeri Stations while he was travelling by Nagrkoil Express (down) on 07.05.2004. It has been stated in the claim petition that due to a jerk, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the compartment on the track and thereafter the said train ran over him, resulting in fatal injuries to him and subsequent death. It is further stated that the deceased was in possession of Ticket No.13012, issued to travel from Krishnarajapuram to Yadgir.
The said claim was contested by the respondent/Railway Authority on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the 4 recovered ticket was not issued for the train mentioned therein.
On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal also recorded the following facts, which are weaned from the Police records viz., FIR. That one unknown dead body was lying on KM No.627/9-8 on upline between Yadgir and Lingeri and the age of the dead person and by whom it was noticed. That the FIR was received with the Police Station between 10.15 hours. The Tribunal has also noticed that the application is silent about when the deceased started his journey and how the accident occurred in the mid-section. The Tribunal has also recorded that in the inquest report it is stated that the deceased has come across a moving train. The Tribunal has also examined contents of the post-mortem report. According to it, the cause of death was due to injuries to vital organs and the time of death probably about 24-36 hours prior to examination. It is also refers to a detailed report of the Railway Police Force [for short "RPF"] and the report is said to have been approved by DRM/GTL stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death was not due to fall from the train as 5 there was no train viz., Train No.6340, Nagarkoil Express on that day and the death was due to other reasons. The copy of the report has also been placed before the Tribunal as Annexure-R1 and the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal formulated the following 4 issues:
1) Whether the applicants prove that the deceased Bassappa while travelling by Nagerkoil Express on 07.05.04 fell down between Yadgiri and Lingeri Stations and died in an untoward incident in terms of Section 123(c)(2) or 124-A of Railways Act, 1989?
2) Whether the respondent railways prove that the deceased Bassappa was not a bona fide passenger by Nagerkoil Express on 07.05.04 in terms of Section 123(c) (2) or 124-A of Railways Act, 1989?
3) Whether the applicants are the
dependants of the deceased
Bassappa?
4) What relief? What costs?
6
6. A reading of issue No.1 would show that the Tribunal has wrongly cast the burden on the applicants.
Issue Nos.2 and 3 are rightly cast.
7. With regard to issue No.1, it is necessary to find out as to whether the findings are in consonance with the law or otherwise. With regard to issue No.1, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants have failed to prove the same because the said Nagarkoil Express Train departs from K.R.Puram on 05.05.2004 and was reaching Yadgir on 06.05.2004 and did not pass through Yadgir on 07.05.2004. The other reason was that the dead body was found on upline whereas, Train No.6340 in which the deceased is supposed to have traveled runs on downline. In other words, it concluded that there is no evidence at all of a fall from the train, leave alone 'accidental fall' as the train did not run on 07.05.2004.
8. A reading of the material on record would clearly demonstrates that the conclusion of the Tribunal is wholly incorrect and is a result of misreading the evidence on record and wrongly casting the burden on the applicants. In fact, the burden ought to have been cast 7 upon the Railway Authorities to demonstrate that the death has not occurred on account of untoward incident involving the train.
9. This Court is constrained to observe the above for the following:
10. It is an undisputed fact that trespassing on the railway property is an offence and criss-crossing on the track except in the permitted place is also impermissible. It is also a fact that ticketless travel is also prohibited and it is a punishable offence and all occurrences in and over the railway properties are investigated by the RPF and all the railway properties are under the exclusive control of the railways. The Tribunal erred in not noticing certain basic admitted facts. The admitted fact is that the dead body was found with injuries on it on upline railway track between Yadgir and Lingeri at Km No.627/9-8. This fact, which has been recorded by the railways and in the FIR- Ex.A1 registered by the RPF. The FIR refers that the dead body was noticed only on 07.05.2004.
11. Noticing of the dead body or discovery of the dead body on 07.05.2004 has become the subject of a 8 wrong interpretation and presumed to be the date of death, which has ultimately resulted in the erroneous conclusion. The next undisputed fact is the report that the deceased had come across the moving train accidentally and the death was on account of deep injuries on the head, which action suggests "run over"
and that the deceased had been hit by a moving train and sustained head injuries with heavy bleeding from nostril and suffered instant death and that the train which caused it is not known. These are the facts, which are revealed by the inquest-Ex.A3. The next set of facts revealed by the final report submitted by the Sub-
Inspector and RPF., is that which states that the message of the Deputy Station Master of Raichur was received that a body was lying on upline.
12. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of A.W.1 in the proper perspective. The evidence which ought to have been considered while rendering a finding on issue No.1 has been considered for the purpose of rendering a finding on issue No2. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 at page 9 of its order has considered the deposition of A.W.1., who is none other than the son of 9 the deceased. He has stated that he had accompanied his deceased father to KJM [Krishnarajapuram] Railway Station and left the Station at about 21.30 hours. He has stated that apart from dropping his father at the station, he did not know for which train his father had purchased the ticket nor about the fare that he had paid. This deposition has been rejected on the ground that it cannot be relied on because there was no train at KJM Station especially, the Nagarkoil to Mumbai on 05.05.2004 and also because there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. In respect of this discussion, issue No.2 which is juxtaposed with the finding at page No.7 in respect of issue No.1 is as follows:
"Nagercoil Express, being a train running on four days a week, was not there at Yadgir 07.05.2004. The train leaves Krishnarajapuram on Mondays Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays from Krishnarajapuram reaching Yadgir on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. There was a train on 05.05.2004 from Krishnarajapuram reaching Yadgir on 06.05.2004 i.e., 10 Thursday and not 07.05.2004 which was Friday."
It would show that the reasoning are self-contradictory and the facts have been twisted only to support the conclusions as pre-determined by the Tribunal. With regard to issue No.1, the burden of proving which is cast upon the applicants, it has held that the train Nagarkoil Express leaves KJM Station on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and reaches Yadgir on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. It rendered a categorical finding that there was a train on 05.05.2004 departing from KJM Station and reaching Yadgir on 06.05.2004. The evidence of A.W.1 is that he dropped his father at the KJM Station on 05.05.2004 i.e., on the date and time of which the train departed from KJM Station. It is not known why this categorical statement has not been appreciated by the Tribunal while considering issue No.1. On the contrary, it has gone off on a tangent of taking the date of 07.05.2004 as the date of the accident. The application, while describing the place and date of the accident and name of the train involved has simply reproduced the dates furnished by the FIR. If the 11 Tribunal had applied its mind to the contents of the post- mortem report, which is marked as Ex.A4, it would not have rendered the finding.
13. The following sequence is necessary alleviate the doubts cast upon the version of the applicants. There is no dispute that the dead body was noticed lying on the track on 07.05.2004. The other evidence on record is that A.W.1., who asserts that the deceased departs from KJM Station on 05.05.2004. It is also admitted fact that the ticket and a pocket diary were recovered by the Railway Authority and handed over to the applicants. It is also a fact that the train, which left KJM Station on the night of 05.05.2004 had crossed the spot where the accident occurred on 06.05.2004. The post mortem report-Ex.A4 clearly states that the death has occurred about 24-36 hours prior to the post-mortem. The date of post-mortem is 08.05.2004 and if the 36 hours time period is calculated from the time of conducting the post- mortem, it would fall on 06.05.2004 i.e., the date on which the accident occurred. It would demonstrate that the death had occurred on 06.05.2004 only i.e., the date when the train passes through the said spot, where the 12 dead body was found. The version and evidence of A.W.1 before the Tribunal is backed and re-iterated by the statement recorded by the RPF under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. The said statement has been recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector on 16.05.2004. He has unambiguously stated that he was in the KJM Railway Station to drop his father on 05.05.2004 and his father left for Yadgir by train Nagarkoil Express and that his father's death was informed by the Railway Police to one Anandappa, owner of the STD Booth, who in turn informed them and that he along with his family members left for Savoor village in Yadgir from Bangalore by Nagarkoil train on 08.05.2004 and that by observing injuries on the dead body, he believed that the death had occurred in the railway accident only and that he did not suspect involvement of nobody else in the railway accident. The witness has stated that he was studying in SSLC at that time. Being a young boy and a teenager, the Tribunal ought to have lent more weight to his say.
14. The Railway Police have also recorded the statement of one Mariyappa, s/o. Yellappa. The said statement has been recorded on 08.05.2004 and has 13 been recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, - Bashir Ahmed, wherein he has stated that the deceased Basappa had left for Bangalore on 28.04.2004 to meet his daughters, who were employed in Bangalore and on 07.05.2004, he was informed by the friend by name Siddanagoudru about the death of Basappa in the railway accident near Yadgir and that they tried to go to the accident spot, but due to heavy rain, they could not move immediately, but later received a massage from the Police that the dead body had been shifted to Raichur Government Hospital and that they reached the Hospital on 08.05.2004 and they identified the body of the deceased as Basappa, s/o. Mallappa.
15. A perusal of the inquest report would show that its contents have been re-produced in the claim petition. At column No.3, there is details regarding the date of injuries and the distance from the Police Station and in this column it is recorded "on 07.05.2004 at Railway KM No.627/9-8 between Yadgiri and Lingeri Railway Station about 75 kms.". It also states that the message was received on 07.05.2004 at 11.15 hours from the Deputy Station Master, Raichur. The report of the 14 Railway Police in the UDR Case No.18/2004, dated 07.05.2004 makes an interesting reading. Amongst the articles seized are one small pocket diary containing phone numbers of certain people. Seizure of the travelling ticket from Krishnarajapuram to Yadgir, train No.13012. Apart from this, no other articles are said to have been seized. Thus the fact is clear that the ticket was found on the person of the deceased. In another paragraph of the report, it has been concluded that the deceased had come across the moving train accidentally and deep injury on the head and the injuries on the chest caused due to pressing of the jelly and that the same might be the reason for the death and it has been concluded that the death is not homicidal.
16. It is not known what permitted the Tribunal to even disbelieve the records maintained by the respondent itself. It has simply brushed aside all these voluminous evidence and more categorically it has arrived at a very erroneous conclusion regarding the ticket. The Tribunal has found fault with a fact that is admitted by RPF. It is the railway police, who retrieved the ticket from the dead body along with a pocket diary and thereafter, the same 15 have been handed over to the applicants. The applicants have thereafter re-produced the same before the Tribunal. Prima facie, the inquest report at Ex.A3 had concluded that the death is on account of the deceased having come across the moving train and it has also detailed injuries and concluded that the injuries are caused by an unknown train. The said factum of the death caused by a moving train has been concluded by the post-mortem report, which has been produced at Ex.A4. It is an admitted fact that there are no eye-witnesses. More specifically, there are no eye-witnesses from the family of the claimants. None of the claimants witnesses did claim that they had witnessed the accident. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal refusing to believe their version because they are not the eye-witnesses to the accident is to be derided. The Tribunal ought to have looked into the surrounding circumstances and the records maintained by the respondent more specifically the RPF., who on investigation recorded the statement of A.W.1, the son of the deceased that he dropped his father at KJM Station on 05.05.2004. This goes against the finding of the Tribunal that there was no train which departed from 16 KJM Station to Yadgir on the night of 05.05.2004. In the light of the above discussion, more specifically with regard to the contents of the inquest report and the confirming post-mortem report and the factum of seizure of train ticket from the body of the deceased, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to issue No.1 is perverse and is accordingly set aside.
17. As regard to issue No.2, the Tribunal has again indulged in a convoluted reasoning. It states that the issue has to be held against the claimants because they failed to prove that the ticket is a valid ticket. At the cost being repetitive, the Tribunal has miserably failed in realizing the fact that the ticket was seized under the inquest report and thereafter the same was handed-over by the competent authority to the applicants/claimants. The inquest report clearly states that it is a valid travel ticket entitling a person to travel between KJM Station and Yadgir Station. In the light of the findings recorded in the inquest report, the Tribunal should have accepted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. On the contrary, it has relied upon the inspector report of the DRM/GTL., which has held that the deceased is not a 17 bona fide passenger and that the tickets cannot be looked into because there was no date on it. It has come in the statement of the Mariyappa, s/o. Yellappa, aged 55 years that there was heavy rain and the possibility of the ticket having got wet and the date could have got smudged or erased. Such a possibility cannot be ruled out and such an argument is in the realm of possibilities. Further, the railway ticket was the property of the respondent/railways prior to issue. Hence, it was the duty of the respondent to disprove the same or place cogent material like details of the ticket issued by the KJM Station etc. to demonstrate that the ticket is fabricated or concocted for the purpose of this case. No such material is placed on record and despite the same it has tended to rely on the finding of the DRM/GTL., who is an interested party. It has failed to see that the ticket has been identified in the first document that came into existence i.e., inquest report, which was prepared at the earliest point of time i.e., on 07.05.2004 and it was on 07.05.2004 that the body of the deceased was discovered. Hence, it ought not to have placed reliance on the contents of the interested finding to arrive at its own 18 finding. Hence, the finding on issue No.2 also warrants interference and it is accordingly set aside.
18. The Tribunal has yet again indulged in certain fanciful reasoning. This Court is constrained to state so because of the finding rendered on issue No.3. It has held that the appellants cannot be treated as the legal heirs of the deceased because they have not submitted any reliable documents like identity card, election card, ration card or SSLC certificate to establish their relationship with the deceased, the inquest was conducted on the unknown body, the body was buried by the Police and no relatives come forward.
19. The perusal of the available material nowhere demonstrates the alleged fact that the Police buried the dead body. On the contrary, the inquest report prior to the post-mortem has clearly states that on 07.05.2004 no relatives have come forward to claim the dead body. But, the statements recorded on 08.05.2004 would demonstrate that the body was identified by the acquaintance of the deceased by name Mariyappa, s/o. Yellappa Shivadi aged about 45 years and the residents of 19 deceased native. Further the statement of the son of the deceased applicant-A.W.1 has been recorded on 16.05.2004 by the Police. The Investigating Authorities viz., RPF have identified them and accepted them as the legal heirs of the deceased. The ticket and pocket diary have been produced by the appellants. When the Investigating Authorities themselves have acknowledged the relationship of the appellants and have handed-over the properties of the deceased, this Court does not see any valid reasons for the Tribunal to hold otherwise. No iota of evidence has also been let in by the respondent denying the relationship. Be that as it may, the appellants have produced the ration card with the photo of the deceased and the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, copy of Aadhaar Card before this Court. Before parting with this, it is necessary to dwell upon the provisions of law, which mandates the fact that need to be proved and the person who is entitled for the compensation.
20. Section 124-A of the Railways Act reads as follows:
20
"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 was 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.21
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."
This Court while interpreting the same has rendered a finding which is a diametrically opposed to the finding rendered by the Tribunal in the instant case and it has held that not only a person holding a ticket entitling him to travel but, even a person having a platform ticket is also entitled to claim compensation, subject to the condition that he is involved in a untoward incident and which is not an exception as detailed in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 22
21. Paragraphs 10 to 15 of the Judgment rendered by this Court reported in 2010(3) AIR Kar R 745 [Smt. Vinodamma & Ors. Vs. Union of India] are extracted hereunder:
10. Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act defines a passenger as follows:
"(29) "passenger" means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket;"
The word "passenger" also occurs in Section 124-A and the said section with the explanation, therefore, will have to be referred to at thus juncture and it 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 was been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who was 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, not with standing anything contained in any other 23 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 24 platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."
11. That fact that deceased Thippeswamy was holding a valid ticket is not in controversy as the Railway Claims Tribunal has also accepted the said fact by referring to the ticket number and the date on which it was issues and the said ticket is also produced at Ex. A-6. By virtue of Section 2(29), the deceased is, therefore, is deemed to be a passenger. With this conclusion in the background, if we look at Section 124-A, the word "passenger" that occurs in the said section including the explanation will therefore, covers the case of deceased Thippeswamy as well. The explanation to Selection 124- A further makes it clear that 'passenger' also includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling and the said explanation is followed by the punctuation mark 'coma' and it goes on to say that by a train carrying passengers. Therefore, a plain reading of the said explanation does not give room to take the view that in order to be considered as coming within the definition of 'passenger' both in Section 124-A and Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, the said person must hold a 25 valid ticket to travel as a passenger in a particular train. The use of the expression in the explanation "by a train carrying passengers" would imply that the person holding a valid ticket can travel in any train which takes him to his destination and the use of the indefinite article "a" and not the definite article "the", therefore, would imply that the framers of the Act or the legislation had in view the possibility of a person holding a valid ticket to travel by any train that takes him to his destination.
12. To further illustrate this,. If a person, who wants to reach a destination in between Bangalore and Mysore, purchases a ticket at Bangalore station, he could go by a train that takes him to his destination in between Bangalore and Mysore, unless the ticket itself prohibits from travelling in any train that takes him to his destination. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid explanation given to Section 124-A and the definition in Section 2(29) of the Act, it cannot be said that deceased Thippeswamy was not holding a valid ticket to travel in a train from Chikkajajur.
13. As far as the view taken by the Claims Tribunal in instant case that train 26 No.581 was bound from Bangalore to Dharwad and train No. 582 was the train coming from Hubli to Bangalore and the deceased was holding a ticket and boarded train No.581 is concerned, so long as the deceased satisfies the defilation of a "passenger" occurring in Section 2(29) and in Section 124-A and the explanation therein, the railway administration cannot escape its liability if the case falls outside the purview of exceptions (a) to (e) to Section 124-A. It is nobody's case that the case of Thippeswamy is covered by any one of the five exceptions mentioned in Section 124-A.
14. Apart from the above, as lightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is not uncommon to come across situations where persons holding valid ticket get into train other than one in which they were supposed to travel due to various factors like confusion when the platform from which the train moves is suddenly declared to be a different platform and also due to illiteracy and other facts. Therefore, the provisions of the Railways Act will have to be interpreted in a manner which would advance the object of the Act and since it 27 is beneficial legislation, liberal interpretation should be given and, in this connection, it is also relevant to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India V Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2003 ACJ 1895:
(AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 383). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision which requires to be reproduced are as under:
"12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, the beneficial on welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. V. Workmen,, AIR 1961 SC 647 (Para 7); Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1984 SC 1842 (Para 11); Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 852 (Para 13); S.M.Nilajkar V. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 (Para 12) : (AIR 2003 SC 3553 : 2003 AIR - Kant HCR 1193) etc. 28
13. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. V. Ashok Vishnu Kate, AIR 1996 SC 285, this Court observed:
"(40) In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this Court in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. American Express International Banking Corporation (1985) 4 SCC 71: (AIR 1986 SC 458), wherein Chinnappa Reddy, J. in para 4 of the report has made the following observations:
"The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words
occurring in statues of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights' legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions. In construing these legislation the imposture of literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication must be recognized and reduced Judges ought to be more concerned with the 'color', the 'content' and the 'context' of such statues [we have borrowed the words from Lord Wilberforce's opinion in Prenn v.
Simmonds, (1971) 3 AII ER 2371]. In the 29 same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that law is not be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquiry beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is not be interpreted purely on internal linguistic considerations in one of the cases cited before us, that is Surencdar Kumar Verma V. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, AIR 1981 SC 422, we had occasion to say:
'Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statues. Welfare statues must, of necessity, receive a board interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions'."
14. 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 30 travel by the 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 works, purposive and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid view expressed by the Apex Court, in the case on hand, the Claims Tribunal, instead of giving a liberal interpretation moreso in the light of the definition of "passenger" as contained in Section 2 (29) and Section 124-A as well as explanation to the said section narrowed down the interpretation of "passenger" and thereby the applicants were deprived of being 31 entitled to compensation. Therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that for being a passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act, he must be a person a travelling with a ticket relating to the concerned train cannot be sustained in law not only in view of the definition of "passenger" referred to by me above but also in view of the interpretation to be given to the words in respect of a beneficial or welfare statute is concerned. Consequently, the order of the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
A reading of the above paragraphs would clearly demonstrate that the impugned Order of the Tribunal is wholly illegal and unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The impugned order of the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The claim application is allowed and the compensation as per Part-I of the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 is awarded. The compensation is quantified at 32 Rs.4,00,000-00 [Rupees Four Lakhs only] as per the Schedule. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the application till the date of this order and if the same is not made within two months from this order, the interest will be payable at 9% p.a. till the actual payment is made. In the above facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ksm* CT/-MHS