Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.64 seconds)Section 124A in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003
"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.
B.D. Shetty And Others vs M/S. Ceat Ltd. And Another on 30 October, 2001
"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.
Alembic Chemical Works Co., Ltd vs The Workmen on 15 December, 1960
In other
words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and
not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co.
Ltd. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647( para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs.
Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa
and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852
(para 13), S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC
27(para 12) etc.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008
The Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation to protect
the bona fide travellers who have a valid travel ticket/pass as per the
definition of Section 2 (29) of the 1989 Act. The action claimed under
Section 124-A of the 1989 Act is, thus, maintainable and it has been held
to be in a form of a no fault liability for which the Railways are liable to
pay compensation and an action is liable to be maintained on that account
and compensation is to be paid. The Act being a social beneficial piece
of legislation has been noticed by the Apex Court in 'Union of India Vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & others' 2008 (9) SCC 527, which has
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2018 07:44:29 :::
FAO No.5381 of 2014 (O&M) -6-
been further followed in 'Jameela & others Vs. Union of India' 2010
(12) SCC 443. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
The amount of compensation will be bifurcated between the
widow and the two minors to the extent that the widow is liable to receive
`2 lakhs alongwith interest, which will be paid to her in her bank account
in three equal annual installments by the Tribunal in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in 'Genreral Manager, Kerala State Road
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2018 07:44:29 :::
FAO No.5381 of 2014 (O&M) -9-
Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and
others', 1994 AIR (SC) 1631.
Section 23 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Lalappa Lingappa & Ors vs Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., ... on 11 February, 1981
In other
words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and
not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co.
Ltd. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647( para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs.
Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa
and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852
(para 13), S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC
27(para 12) etc.
xxxx xxxx xxxx