Judgment S.SHAMSUL HASAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under S.82F(2) of the Railways Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant was the guard of a goods train which was involved in an accident. He made a claim under S.82A of the Act for compensation of Rs. 30000.00 on account of injuries sustained in the accident and the loss of certain goods. The respondent defended the claim, inter alia, on the ground that since the appellant was not covered by the expression passenger within the meaning of S.82A, he was not entitled to any relief under the Act. The Claims Commissioner, who heard the case, rejected the defence case relating to the merits of the claim and held that the applicant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 20000.00 and odd. The application was, however, dismissed on the technical ground that the applicant was not entitled to any relief under S.82A of the Act. 2. Mr. Bishwanath Agrawal, appearing in support of the appeal contended that since the Section is remedial in nature, it should be interpreted liberally so as to include a railway servant travelling as a part of his duty within the term passenger. He emphasised the fact that the applicant was not a passenger travelling unauthorisedly. If a person on a train with a ticket on payment of fare is entitled to compensation, there cannot be any reason to exclude the guard who is rendering useful service and without whose presence the train cannot be allowed to move, from the benefits of the Section. I am afraid, the Section cannot be enlarged in its scope on account of apparently equitable but sentimental ground urged. During the course of argument. we felt deep sympathy for the appellant and after the close of the hearing, reserved our judgement observing that the railway administration may take a sympathetic attitude in favour of the appellant. A copy of our order of that date was handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent for being sent to the railway authorities. The case was thereafter adjourned on several occasions and ultimately on 4-8-1986 the learned counsel for the parties informed us that no amicable settlement could be arrived at. 3. The language of S.82A of the Act in unambiguous terms refers to the death of or personal in jury and loss etc. The case was thereafter adjourned on several occasions and ultimately on 4-8-1986 the learned counsel for the parties informed us that no amicable settlement could be arrived at. 3. The language of S.82A of the Act in unambiguous terms refers to the death of or personal in jury and loss etc. to a passenger so as to give rise of a liability of the railway administration under this Section. The principles governing damages or arising in equitable claims are not relevant the liability arises independently. The Section directs payment to be made whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a person to maintain an action and recover damages. The duty to pay arises notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary. Judged against this background, the Section must be confined to cases where the claimant is a passenger. Persons who are not included in the expression passenger are entitled to claim compensation by following other remedies available in law. 4. The moot question is, therefore, whether guard of a train can be considered to be a passenger. The term has not been defined in the Act and its meaning has to be understood by reference to the context in which it is used. As defined in S.3(4), the Act lays down law relating to railways in India and railway means a railway for public carriage of passengers, animals or goods. Sub-Sec. (7) states that railway servant means any person employed by the railway administration in connection with service of a railway. Chapter V of the Act indicates that railways are responsible for rendering service to the travelling public in general and in relation to transport of goods. This obligation is discharged by railway administration through its servants. Persons connected with the railways can be divided into two broad groups members of the travelling public (and those who want their goods to be transported) who are entitled to enforce the obligation due to them; and railway servants who are under a duty to discharge the obligation on behalf of the administration. Those belonging to the first category have to pay for the services to be rendered to them while the railway servants are themselves to be paid by the administration. Those belonging to the first category have to pay for the services to be rendered to them while the railway servants are themselves to be paid by the administration. Chapter VII in which Ss.82A to 82K are included deals with the responsibility of the railway administration as carriers (see the heading). Railways cannot be described as carriers vis-a-vis railway servants on duty. Of course, when they are travelling on their own and not in discharge of their duty, they are not travelling as railway servants and are included in the first category. Any injury or loss suffered by them while rendering service, therefore, stands on a different footing altogether and the claim for compensation has to be made and allowed as a servant on duty by following appropriate procedure. The scheme of the Act and the language used in the Section lead to the irresistible conclusion that special remedy under S.82A is not applicable to railway servants on duty and they cannot be treated as passengers. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without cost. Before closing, however, I would once more strongly recommend to the railway administration for sympathetic consideration of the appellants case for compensation if he has not already initiated another action in this regard. S.SHAMSUL HASAN, J. 6 I agree