Karnataka High Court
Smt Vinodamma vs Union Of India on 15 March, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 KARNATAKA 174, 2010 (3) AIR KANT HCR 745
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the £54 dav of March 2010
-BE FORE
THE HON BLE MRELJUSTICE : V. JAGANNAT HAN,
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No, Ase / 2008 (ROT
ise PAW REROIN
i. simit. Vinodamuna,
Aged abou
W /o late Mada Ppa.
a
Ce
"
_
:
:
:
F
;
2. Sro Yogesh.
Aged about 2: 3 vears Bes
S/o late s M: iadapy co
3. sr Mis ad itn
Aged. about 24 vears,
S/o late Madap; yas
All are fa. And aver Vi Hage,
Hola tt cere. Pad Us.
Appelarits
© | By Sri Ro Nvishna Reddy, Advocate. )
PANDY.
Union of tovtia,
7 South Westen: Raibways, Hubli,
- rent. By its General Manager.
. fespondent
(By Sri N.S.Sanjay Gowda, Advocate. j
Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section
23{1}) of the RCT Act against the judgment and order
dated 30. 1.2008 passed in O.A.No. 21/2005 on the file
of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench,
dismissing the application filed under Section 19 at the
RCT Act for payment of compensation,
court delivered the following :
L
JUDGMENT
Fhe appellants. (applictats "before rhe Railway (ales Pribunall. being the- mother. arid brothers of deceased Thippeswany. ca in question the order of the Railway Claims "Tribunal "dismissing their application filed under Section 16 Of the Mailwav Ciagms Tripuiial Act, LOB7 seeking compensation following the death of Thippeswany NL aN, intoward accident. The said _ accivlert, occurred when he was getting down the train at . Chikkajajur Railway Station and the train suddenly moved of account oF which Thippeswamiy fell down, sustained injuries and died.
2 it was the case of the appellants before the Railway Claims Tribunal that Thippeswamyv had a valid ticket purchased by him at Chikkajajur Railway Station and when he boarded the train at Chikkajajur and when he was trving to get down the train, all of a sudden, the train moved leading to Thippeswamw failing down and later died on acco of the injuries sustaihbed ty ihe that the deceased was polding- a second. Class trai. Hecket i respect of train No.Ss i. The.facts are also rot al Chikkaiajiu Railway Station on 204-2005 for the train that leaves abel. hours' it is ceu tese facts that the appellants approached "the claims tribunal for COM PCVISAlIOl:, 3, the-respondent rarhwav adniinistration took Lip the coritention berere the claims tribunal that though the deceased was hoidirg a valid ticket to travel as a passenger, the said ticket pertained to train No.s82 anc Hot jor-train No.58i and, therefore, ir cannot be said that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in respect of train N 0.081. The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted the
- said contention of the respondent railways and held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because, he had been issued a ticket in respect of train No.582 and not in respect of trai No.o8l. It was, therefore, heid by the Tribunal that the deceased was not folding a valid ticket tor his travel by train at the relevant time-of -- a boriande passenger it respect of the tait inp question. Phe and, as such. the application was: peqected., Tribunal also heid that tor bewig @ passenger toithin the ineaiirig OF the Rallwavs Acty he "nist be a person travelling witlra ficke! relating to.the concerned train. 4, Agerieved by the "-distmissal of the claim application, 'the -appellaists-applicants are petore this COUPT 7 "this anpeal aad i have heard the learned couse) shri Rhristrra Reddy for the appellants and the leamed counsel Sho NS.Saniay Gowda for the respondestt-Union of incia. i have also perused the
-- inipugned order as well as the record of this case.
"5... The learned counsel for the appellants submitted _ that the view taker by the Katlway Claims Tribunal was totally erroneous and coritrary to the verv provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and it was a 7 7 | ed) contended that so long as if rs not disputed, that deceased 'Thippeswamt was hoidinipg a valid ticket >to (rave; U6) evel as fo paSseliper, MoS PMiinteryvai as te ror which train he tell down so-lone os the case falls Withuly ive vanibi of Seetlon f24-A Carel cupsiete "tire.
Seber Lo eNCePEOLHS Jierbianied ai thie Phe Genital of "passenger bata tr ihe chplatpanaf to Section 24° ane to the cdefirwtiothat Section 21206 of the Mathways fcr PGSU, Tre. stumiission piade ys tlrar 4 deceased "Thibpeswais sarrfies. the requiverient of MCI a DasSenecr caro thercrore, te clalms tribunal could pot have disimissed te claim ADPMICATION:, C, a leds fart ee arener WT US Carihection tialwhier a piatiornn ticket holder is also eligible tor compensation Snider sei sion 24-8 though the said plattorm, ticket holder does mot hold the said UecKet bi respect of arn : "fain, the same aneloepy could be extended even in respect of a person lioidwie a valid tucket to travel by a train: carrving passengers. To further substantiate the above submission, the learned counsel for the appellants also placed rehance on the decisions reported o wy ZOE AC (420 and 2008 AC Poo ane argued that. the provisions of the Kailwavs Act will have to. be t Hberady aiterpretert so as to advayice the be aed ne conferred $y the Act and the aterpretetion should pot i be so liarrow as to cleprive thie bereftoot pie Act reaged by the persoms po respec cl ws hiose acelliaee Loic penenicial provisions have beer incorporated ie thie Act. Yer anotier submission, nade aS wean Pe beket self was pre date e al a Tie 6 elaiths: wibtinal au dex Anes eid Phere is BO. abies ie sand fickel as ta LVaty bes dece psc Was Sh sppnsed footpavel Phererare, thie hnpugied or ter be ee aside and compensation, hie awarded as pear the Nediwav Accidents abc Liitowsaped Ms On the other api. the learned counsel tor te respondent-t inion of india argued that the order of the . : Raskway Clainss Tribtinal is just and proper and requires po iuterference and the tincdine recorded by the Trixsunai that for beuig a passenger within the meanirig of the Railways Act, he must be a person travelling with a by .
ticket relatuig to the concerned tram is the correct view in the light of the material placed before the Claims Tribunal Furtherntore, the ticket hei by-deceased Thippeswaimy was in respect of train No.o82 and mot ior train No.o8i from which tran. jac feb ORT AEC sustanied uyuries. Therefore, the oénelusinn reachiet! by the claims tribunal cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the iéallwavs. Act apd the deccases carmot be deemed to be-a bonatkle passcnesr As such. no interference a called tur. Yet aviothier submission rade js thatexcemt the first appelant who is Lhe mother ot the deceased, the. other appellants, beuig major brothers "of. the deceased, are Hot entitied for COM PenSALIOTL.
"oo. tothe geht of the aforesaid subnussions made and fre, decisions cited, the only point that requires ~~ -eonsideration is as to whether the deceased can be calied a "passenger" so as to entitle the claimants for _ compensation by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 124-A of the Ratlways Act.
& *
10. Section 2(24) of the Railways Act defines a passeriger as tohows:
"(29) "passenper" means a person travelling ° with & valid pass or ticket". ~ The word "passenger" aiso occurs in Section P2d-Acand~ rhe said section with the explanation, wherefore, wHl have to be referred ta ab thus fmucture ard i reads as vilieler:
PA Compensation on. ~ gecount of untoward neiient _ | | "When ain the course of working 4 railway an imioward. iieident occurs, then whether or not there nas been any wroneiul Q act, neglect or default on the part of the 'railway administration such as wold entitle . Zo passenger who has been upured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintani at action arid recover damages ii respect thereof, the railway : administration shali, notwithstanding anything contained tn any other law, be liable to pav conpersation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent onlv for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, 9 a passenger as 4 result of such untoward mneiderit:
administration i the passenger des or .
suffers faguey clue to --
ja} suicide or atten ded suickle 30 hun | fo) sel-infuetect ini nee :
io} Bis owar crimingibact: -
iy) aay act committed. fos Tani ik a state of untoxication or RiSAnily:
fey iy natural cause ; an disease or tact teal or: sii! gical treatment unless Mos Weh. Healy here becomes IECESSALY dae "to onary caused Dy fhe saad Ly 1 rows rd. Hick Lenik.
"Explanation Por the purposes of this section, "passenger" inchides -- Uy a railway servant on cauity, and . (iY a person who has purchased 2 : vuilid teket for travelling by a train Calrving passengers, on any date or a Vaid piatiorm ticket and becomes a victun of an untoward incident."
That fact that deceased Thippeswamy was holding a valid ticket is not in controversy as the Railway Claims 10 Tribunal has also accepted the said tact by referring to the ticket number and the date on which it was issues and the said ticket is also produced at Ex.A-G. » By. virtue of Section 2/20), the deceased is, therefore, t deemed to be a passenger. With this conclusioz in the backerount, if we look at Section': bed-Ao tie werd | "passenger" that occurs im the-saict section melucinig the explanation will, theretore. covers. the case of deceased Thippeswans as well... The explanation to Section p24 further lakes f "lear 4 hat' 'passenger also ielucdes a perser 1 whe has purchased a valid ticker for raveliing ani Hie said" explanation is followed by the punetiation mark 'coma' and I goes or ta Sav Laat, bv a trai carrying passengers. Theretore, a piain readiig of "the said explanation does not give room fo take the view "that siotder te"consideths coming within the definition a passenger" both in Section §24-A and Section 2¢29) of
- : the Rail ravs Act, the said persom must hoid a vauel ricket to travel as a passenger ina particular train. The use of the expression in the explanation "by a train carrving passengers" would imply that the persen 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", shereiones. - would inmply that the tramers of the Act or ihe jewisiation . had in view the possibiliiy of a person hoiding a valid ticket to travel by any train "that takes ir ta. dns destireanor.
f2. To further illustrate. th 'is, if A persets. who wants fo reach a destination in between ban igaiore aint Mysore, purchases: a ticket at Barigalore station, he could go by a tain that takes "him to. huis "destination Wi Detweer Kal galore and Mysore. uniess the ticket itsel? prohibits from). travelling in ariv | train that takes film to lis _ destination.» 'Theretore. in the fight of the aforesaid oxplanation 'given to Section 124-A and the definition i iH -
- Section 2/29) of the Act. it cannot be said that deceased ; 'Thippeswamy was not holding a valid ticker to travel in the train from Chikkajayur.
i3. As far as the view taken by the Claims Tribunal that train No.58l was bound from Bangalore to Dharawad and train No. 582 was the train coming from Hubli to Bangalore and the deceased was holdiag ticket and boarded train No.S581 is concerned, so long. as the deceased satisfies the definition of a "passenger" occurring in Section 2(29) and in Section. |24-A and the:
explanation therein, the railway ndlministracion ¢ caniot escape its babilitv aetae case falls outside trie = pe urwie WOT exceptions (Aa) to fe} to-Seciior ivan Py It is cobody's ses roved b oy case that the case Gt Pha ppeswa aay tetiowethvr ary one OF the five e xceptio oS Be ationed: in "See Son L2d-A, Ie. pr above. a subtaittecd by the learned col: stil for Lhe appellants. iL gs sot pcomynyort to come Be MOSS "Stintions where persous holding valid mo Tickets get_ into" a-train eather than one i which they were, St Ipposed to travel cue fo various factors like oe "Pathe, confusion ot the platform from which the train nioves is suddenly declared to be a different platform: and also due™ to illiteracy and other factors. 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 iS a beneficial legisiation, liberal interpretation should be given and. im this cormection, it is also relevant to refer to the observations of the' Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakearan Vaya Kumar, reported mi 2008 AC PBUS >. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision which requires:
Fo be reproduced are as urider:
"id. itis well settled that if ie words used Wi a beneaicial On w eltare statute are Capeble OF IWO COMStruchol Is. 0 ic One: which: iS more itt consonn! we with tlie obiee t of ihe Ack ain for the benetit (OF thie persori for whom the Ack was inde shonid be preferred, fi otber words, ihe -benehcial on welfare statutes should be given acliberal ana wot literal or strict. aiterpretation vide Alembic Chemical os Works Co. Lid v Workmen, AIR 196) SC 647 . (para aan Jeewanlal Lid ov. Appellate Authority, AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11) "Lalaped Lingappa vo Laxmi Vishnu Textile Milis Ltd, AIR 198] SC 852 (para 13) SM Niiajker uv. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 © SCC 27 (para 12) ete.
13. [In Hindustan Lever Ltd. uv. Ashok Vishnu Kate, AIR 1996 SC 285, this court observed:4
"40) in this cormecnhon, we may usefully turn to the decision of this-_ court in the case of Workmen. of ~ American Express iuternationai -
Banking Corporation -- v. Amencat .
EXpress International. . Hanking 2 Corporation. (1985) 4 SOC 71 / wherein CRinnappea Redcat), J it para 4 oof the :
report fas made the = follow ng OUSErVatlorT 3 "The. principles: ' or . "Sfatiten COLSL ICtioy "aye well settied. Words : ocmurring iy States at liberal mupert _ suchas social welfare legislation and human rights' legislation are not to be "put in Procrustéan beds or shrunk te "Liflipuitian dimensions. in COHSEPLHDE these legisiation the iuposture of Hteral (CONSITUCHON must be avoided atid the
-- prodigality of its misappheation mist : be recogrused and reduced. fudges 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 opnriion in Prenn v. Sunmonds, (1971) 3 ALL ER 237 }. In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that iaw Is not to be left behind tm some isiand of-
literal Interpretation but is to enquiry... > bevonid the language, unisolated front set; the law Is mot to fe miterpreted purely On interne! He ustics considerations, © roa one. ot the "CASES ; cited belore iis, that ise Surender Kumar Verma v Ceniral Govt, Inctustrial Tribunal cum-Lapour Court, AIR LoS) sc é ree, we bac Foceasio ' t 0 Sav! : Semantic luxuries are niisplacercl in the interpretation af. 'bread ard butter' Statues, | Welfare Statues rust, of necessily, 6s receive a board "interpretation. Where legisiaticn 1s designed to give relief against certap kinds of puischiel, the court ws rot to "aiake mpoads bv making etvuiologice AXCUFSIONS ."
i 4. inl Our Opiuen, i we adopt a restrictive * imeamine to the expression 'accutental tailing of a passenger from 4a train carving passengers' in section 123 fe] of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation mi raiwav accidents. [t ts well-known that im our country there are erores of people who travel by the railvay.~ trains since evervbodv cannot afford. | aA restrictive and narrow teaining fo the ~ expression we will be depriving a. large e lumber af vieSius ot Wai Laceidchits . jpartictlariv poor ane riticicite class peuple) from, petting cen persatio: : "ail a y 1e Rraiways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the a eXPLESSIOIL racciélental raili 12 oF passenger Irom a train. arrving paasengers' iacluces accidents whei 4 bona fide passenger, Le. a HASSENLEL traveling with (a valid ticket o1 pass is Hvtiie to ener Hite @ railway train andialls down duitne the precess. in other oweords, "a purposive, and not literal, dnterpretation should be given to the expression.
iS. Having regard to the aforesaid view expressed by "the Apex Court, in the case on hand. the Ciains Tribunal, wistead of giving a liberal mterpretation niore
-.so in the light of the definition of "passenger" as contained in Section 2(29} and Section i24-A as well as explanation to the said section, narrowed down the interpretation of "passenger" and thereby the applicants were deprived of being ertitied to compensation. Pherefore, the finding of the Clanus Tmbunal thet for being a passenper within the meaning of the Rarhwave Aet, he imust be a person travelling with a ticket relating. io the concerned train camier be sustained: im aw 110 ouby fa view of the defuniitiod of *ozisserper™ referred to by me above init also mieview of the iiterpretauiod ta be giver to the words uw. respect ofa beneficial or welfare staiule is concerned. ~oComsequentiv., the order of the Claims 'Pribviiai is Giabb: ta be set aside. IG. Coming to the epiitlemes oof Compensation, ere death of Phippeswamy On account oF untoward memert Pare ine dispute, The deceased was also a passenger . gatisivirig the definition of "passenger" in Section 2/29) and the definition of "passenger" occuaving in Section os 124-A as well as the explanation to the said section and, therefore, compensation will have to be awarded. But, as rightly brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the resporident, appellants-2 and 3 being the major sons of the first appellant, only the first appellani, who is the mother of deceased Thippeswamvy, will be eligible for compensation and this is im view of the definition of "dependents" as contained 'iy Seetion i2a(b) of the faliways Act Phe quantum of compensation is also to be found in the schedule to the. Railway Aecicients and Unteward » Jneiderits (Compensation) ules, 4990 and. ia despect ot death, rie ALIOLUIAL OF compensation payable is, Re ),O007- arid it is only the first appellant, Who.is the niother of deceased Thippeswaay, who 4S cn tied for tie seid Qing. "Phe iiitcrest payable wilh be at 6% from the date of claun applicator:
17... For the: ioregoiig reasons, | pass the followine order:
oe. The 'appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the . Railway Claims Tribural is set aside. The claim "application is allowed in part to the extent of compensation being payable only to the first appellant 'Le. mother of deceased Thippeswamy. The compensation is quantified at Rs.4,00,000/- as per schedule to the aforesaid compensation rules.
The eed. ode iv amount will also carry interest at 6% from the late of application til the date of the order ard if fhe pavment iS not made witht three raonths frori the dote of ree inst a this order, the biterest will he payable at UM ul aetaal pavinent is race.
Cait of the coMmpCHISaiOn amount awarded to tho frst appellant, BS. BBO .OUG f-~ Sirati, be Ke pe in tive deposit in bier raune fon a peniod, of thine $OGPS BD oa nationalised diva of her choice | . The terest ony thre Hed deposi: stall be jiavable to che Grst appellant every quater, rhe heianee ater deposit shall be paid to the Mrst appellant with accrued interest, Sd/-
JUDGE & c ke /- .