Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. The Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal preferred by the Railway Administration had thus an occasion to consider the scope of Section 82-A of the Railways Act, 1890. The Supreme Court held that the philosophy underlying Section 82-A appears to be to turn an existing 'fault' liability into a 'fault or no fault' liability because a carrier who transports passengers as part of his business, when he charges fare, impliedly guarantees to carry him in safety insofar as such safety is within its power. It is within his power to transport the passenger without an accident to the train, for such an accident is not something which is ordinarily or in the normal course of events inherent in the running of a train. The Legislature with an eye on social welfare and to be fair to the passenger who pays the fare for a safe (safe from accident to the train) journey, has provided for compensation by a summary proceeding and has made the liability fault-free. The Supreme Court further held that ".........to ensure safe travel is not to 'insure' the passenger against accident to himself whilst travelling. The distinction deserves to be spot-lighted. What is provided is compensation for death or injury caused or loss sustained on account of accident to the train. What is not provided is compensation for death of the passenger whilst travelling or injury sustained by a passenger whilst travelling on the train, say, by reason of his own act, default, or misfortune, which has no nexus with the accident to the train." The Supreme Court emphasised that Section 82-A does not turn a liability which was contingent on fault into an absolute liability. What it does not do, is to provide a free insurance cover to the person and property of a passenger so that compensation can be claimed for an accidental death of or injury to the passenger and/or loss to his property even when there has been no accident to the train carrying such a passenger. On an analysis of the facts, the Supreme Court held that a passenger felling from a train while the bogie in which he is travelling is being shunted is qualitatively different from a collision of two trains or derailment of a train or blowing up of a train which are events which one does not ordinarily expect in the course of a journey. Such events fall within the parameters of the definition of accident. A jolt to the bogie which is detached from one train and attached to another cannot be termed as an accident as no shunting can take place without such a jerk or an impact at least when it is attached or annexed to a train by a shunting engine. If a passenger tumbles inside the compartment or tumbles out of the compartment when he is getting inside the compartment, or stepping out of the compartment, it cannot be said that an accident has occurred to the train or a part of the train. While it is an accident to the passenger, it is not an accident to the train.

"The deceased is a bona fide passenger and while travelling on a train accidentally fallen down from the running train and received grievous injuries resulting in his death. Hence this is an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act and as such the dependants of the deceased are entitled to compensation in pursuance of Section 124-A of the Act. It has to be held that accidental fall from any part of the compartment is covered by untoward incident. If there is a fall from the steps leading to the compartment, it is a fall from the train. The steps of the compartment cannot be disassociated from the compartment. They are integral part of the compartment. Therefore the contention that the deceased met with an accident while boarding on a running train is not an untoward incident, cannot be accepted. Also the contention that the person who is trying to board a train is not a passenger, cannot be accepted."
"A 'body-scan' of the aforesaid provision (Section 82-A) reveals that:
(1) The machinery of the Section is set in motion only provided there is an 'accident'.
(2) The accident must be 'to' the 'train' or 'part of the train' carrying passengers.
(3) The accident to the train carrying passengers may be due to:
(a) Collusion of two trains one of which is the train carrying passengers; or
(b) derailment of such train; or
(c) other accident 'to' such a train.
(4) In case any passenger travelling by such train dies, or sustains any injury to his person or property, as a result of or on account of such accident to the train or a part of the train carrying passengers, compensation to the extent provided in the section will become payable.
(5) Such compensation will be payable regardless of whether or not the accident to the train carrying passengers is due to negligence or fault on the part of the Railway Administration.

But to ensure safe travel is not to "insure" the passenger against accident to himself 'whilst' travelling. The distinction deserves to be spot-lighted. What 'is' provided is compensation for death or injury caused or loss sustained on account of accident 'to' the train. What is 'not' provided is compensation for death of the passenger 'whilst' travelling or injury sustained by a passenger 'whilst' travelling on the train, say, by reason of his own act, default, or misfortune, which as no nexus with the 'accident to the train'. In other words, what the Section does is to turn a liability which was 'contingent on fault' into an 'absolute' liability. What, however, it does not do, is to provide a free 'insurance cover' to the person and property of a passenger so that compensation can be claimed for the accidental death of or injury to the passenger and/or loss or damage to his property even when there has been no 'accident' to the train carrying such a passenger.