Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh And Anr vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 8 September, 2016
Author: R. N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 2015
1. Ashok Kumar Singh
2. Smt. Kalawati Singh, both R/o Sector IIID,Qr.No.316, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro, Jharkhand . . . . . Appellants
versus
Union of India, through General Manager, S.E.Railway,Koilaghat Street,
Kolkata, West Bengal Respondents.
-----
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
-----
For the Appellants : M/s. Rajesh Kr. Jha .& A.K.Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.S.C.(Railway)
-----
C.A.V on 11.08.2016 Delivered on: 08/09/2016
R.N.Verma,J. Claimants/appellants have preferred this Misc. Appeal under
section 23(1) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment
dated 02.12.2014 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case no.
TAU/RNC/2005/0011, whereby and whereunder claim of the appellants for
compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been rejected.
2. The case of the appellants before the tribunal, in brief, was that
the deceased Manish Kumar, son of Sri Ashok Kr. Singh, aged about 22
years was travelling from Allahabad to Bokato Steel City on 19.10.2004 in
train no. 2802 DN New Delhi Puri- Purushottam Express and he was holding
proper ticket but accidentally fell down from the train near northern side of
platform no. 2 of Bokaro Steel City Station and run over by the said train and
died. Thereafter, U.D.Case no. 14/2004 dated 19.10.2004 was instituted at
Bokaro G.R.P.S. and after due enquiry, final report was submitted stating
therein that it is a case of railway accident, run over due to falling from the
alleged running train. In support of his claim, claimants had examined
himself as witness AW-1 and produced photocopy of FIR, Fardbeyan of one
Sri Harinarayan Singh and Final Report submitted by the police.
3. Contesting the claim, the respondent-Union of India, through
General Manager, S.E. Railway, filed written statement stating inter alia that
the claim application is not maintainable as the deceased was trying to detrain
from a running train and fell down and died on the spot. So it is a case of "self
inflicted injury". Secondly, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, as no
ticket was recovered from the dead body of the deceased. Since it was due to
rash and negligent act of the deceased himself and the injury comes under
the self inflicted injury, hence the accident does not attract the provisions of
enabling payment of compensation " For Accidental Falling".
-2-
4. The Tribunal considering the pleadings of the parties and
documents available on record framed the following issues :
(i) Whether the deceased Manish Kumar, s/o Ashok Kumar Singh
was a bona fide passenger as alleged ?
(ii) Whether any untoward incident as defined under section 123
(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989 occurred to Manish Kumar ,S/o Sri
Ashok Kumar Singh while travelling in Train no. 2802 DN New
Delhi-Puri- Purushottam Express on 19.10.2004 near Bokaro
Steel City Railway Station ?
(iii) Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as
claimed and other relief, if any ?
The Tribunal after hearing the parties and examining the oral as well as
documentary evidences came to the findings as follows :
(i) the deceased was not a victim of an untoward incident within
the meaning of section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act. 1989
(ii) the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train.
But the claimants were not entitled to any compensation as the
respondent has proved that Manish Kumar, since deceased, died due to self
inflicted injury caused by criminal negligence which falls under the proviso (b)
of section 124-A of the Railway ( Amendment) Act, 1994. Hence, this Misc.
Appeal.
5. Mr.R.K.Jha,learned counsel for the appellants assailing the
impugned judgment as bad in law seriously contended that when the
deceased was found to be a bona fide passenger, the rejection of the claim
application can not sustain in the eye of law. It was also submitted that the
court below also erred in holding that deceased died due to self inflicted injury
as defined under proviso (b) of Section 124-A of the Act in sbsence of any
evidence on record and the entire finding of the Claims Tribunal is based and
mere presumption that the deceased fell down from the train due to his own
negligence.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Railway
supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the findings recorded by
court below needs no interference as is based on correct appraisal of the
evidence on record.
7. Chapter XIII of the Railway Act, 1989 deals with the liability of
Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents
and the very first section of the Chapter is section 123, which deals with the
definition part and Clause (c) defines "Untoward incident ". For proper
adjudication of the dispute between the parties, a reference to section 123 (c)
is necessary, which is reproduced, herein, below :
-3-
(c) "Untoward incident" means-
(1) (i)the commission of terrorist act within the meaning of
sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1987 ; or
-3-
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission or
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."
From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it would appear that case
of the deceased covers under section 123(2) of the Act which stipulates a
death shows due to accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying
passengers.
8. A reference of section 124-A of the Act is also relevant for the
present case which is 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 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.
Apparently, the said deceased died to falling from the running train. The
tribunal has come to the finding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.
It is now to be seen that under Section 124A the liability to pay compensation
is regardless of any wrongful, neglect or default on the part of the Railway
administration but the proviso to the section says that Railway would have no
liability to pay any compensation in case of death orinjury caused due to any
-4-
of the reasons enumerated in clause (a) to (e).
The respondent-Railway has not brought on record any evidence to
prove the accident within the four corners of the above Clause (a) to (e) to the
proviso. The court below while considering the issue no.2 has relied upon the
FIR (Ext A1), Inquest Report (Ext. A4) and the report submitted by the police
(Ext. A3) wherein it is mentioned that death has been caused due to run over
while trying to get down from the train and the court below has relied on the
statement of the Duty Guard of the Purushottam Express (Ext. A7) that when
the train arrived at platform no.2 of Bokaro station and the train was in slow
motion before stopping there was some noise from the passenger's portion of
the Guard Brake Van. Immediately after the train stopped, he personally went
to the site and found one male person, aged about 20 years lying inside the
track. Admittedly, the Guard has not actually seen the alleged incident and the
said guard has not been examined in court. So the said evidence can not be
relied upon in absence of the corroboration by the said Guard. Even if there
was any negligence on the part of the deceased, the negligence of that kind is
not very uncommon on Indian trains and the same can not be equated with
the criminal act mentioned in Clause (a) to (e) to the proviso to Section 124-A.
Even it can not be brought within the clause of "Self inflicted injury" in absence
of any evidence.
9. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India.Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar: (2008)9 SCC-527
and while interpreting the term " accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers", the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the situation
where a person is trying to board the train and falls down from the train held
as follows :
"In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the
expression " accidental falling a passenger from a train
carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) to the Railways Act,
we will depriving a large number of railway passengers
from getting compensation in railway accident. It is well
known that in our country there are crores of people to
travel by trains since every body 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 bona fide passenger
i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is
trying to enter into railway train and falls down during the
process. In other words, a propulsive, and not literal
interpretation should be given to the expression."
-5-
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 10 to 12 has
further held as follows :
"10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any
difference whether the deceased was actually inside the
train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to
get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either
case it amounts to an "accidental falling of a passenger
from a train carrying passengers". Hence, it is an "untoward
incident" as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be
given to the expression " accidental falling of a passenger
from a train carrying passengers", the first being that it only
applies when a person has actually got inside the train and
thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being
that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board
the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the
provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should
receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow
and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the
above mentioned two interpretations i.e. the one which
advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose
should be preferred vide Kunal Singh.v. Union of India
( SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd.( SCC para 12 ) and
Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn.
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 the Act and
for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made
should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare
statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict
intrepretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co.Ltd v.
Workmen ( AIR para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd.V. Appellate
Authority ( AIR para 11), Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu
Textile Mills Ltd.(AIR para 13), S.M.Nilajkar v. Telecom
District Manager ( SCC para 12)
The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that even if the
incidence does not come within the purview of section 124-A and the death
occurred due to travelling in train or at the time of boarding or getting down
from the train, the claimants are entitled for compensation as provided under
Rule 3 and 4 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents ( compensation)
Rules 1990.
11. In the instant case, I find that claimants/appellants are succeeded
in establishing that deceased while travelling in the train accidentally fell down
from the train and sustained injury which eventually led to his death.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that it is an "Untoward accident "
prescribed under section 123(c) of the Act. Hence, claimants are entitled
to the compensation in view of the finding of the Tribunal
-6-
that deceased was a bona fide passenger.
12. It is true that the claimants in the claim application has not made
any claim for grant of interest and cost but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others.Vs. Union of India and
another" :(2009)7 SCC-372, while considering similar situation in paragraph
37 and 38 held as follows :
37. Even if the appellants may not be entitled to claim interest
from the date of the accident, we are of the view that the claim to
interest on the awarded sum has to be allowed from the date of
the application till the date of recovery, since the appellant cannot
be faulted for the delay of approximately eight years in the
making of the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Had the
Tribunal not delayed the matter for so long, the appellants would
have been entitled to the beneficial interest of the amount
awarded from a much earlier date and we see no reason why
they should be deprived of such benefit.
38. As we have indicate earlier, payment of interest is basically
compensation for being denied the use of the money during the
period in which the same could have been made available to the
claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court,
were wrong in not getting any interest whatsoever to the
appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to
the established principles relating to payment of interest on
money claims.
So from the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be
clear that even if there is no claim with regard to the interest, since it is money
claim, claimants are entitled to the interest.
13. In the result, this Misc. Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated
02.12.2014passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case no.
TAU/RNC/2005/0011 is, hereby, set aside. The Respondent-Union of India, through General Manager, S.E. Railway, Koilaghat Street, Kolkata, West Bengal is, hereby, directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the claimants/appellants within a period of three months with simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till the date of final payment.
Sd/-
( R. N. Verma, J.) Raman /