Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In the instant case in absence of any concrete evidence showing that, the deceased fell down while attempting to board a running train from off-side, the conclusion recorded by the tribunal cannot be sustained. From the material which is available on record fall of deceased Ganesh from the train has to be held as accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 8 FA 168.16 one more judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SCC 383. Having regard to the facts involved in the present case, I find it appropriate to reproduce herein-below the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 1o to 12 of the said judgment, which are thus:

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 form a train carrying passengers'. Hence, it is an 'untoward accident' 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 abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12); Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc.

10. In view of the observations made and the conclusions recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid, the finding recorded by the tribunal that deceased Ganesh fell down as a result of his own negligence cannot be subscribed. I reiterate that in absence of any concrete evidence brought on record by the railway administration the fall of deceased Ganesh from the train has to be held as accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.