Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1772 (BOM)

Union of India v. Gulam Dastgir s/o Abdul Rahman

2008-12-18

A.B.CHAUDHARI

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-Railways have challenged judgment and award dated 20/12/2002 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No. 15/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2002 by which the Tribunal made an award directing payment of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the respondents-claimants. 2. In support of the appeal filed by the appellant-railways, Mr. Lambat, learned Counsel for the appellant made following submissions: (i) The claimants did not prove that deceased was bonafide passenger. (ii) Spot panchanama did not mention that any ticket was found on the person of the deceased. Though it is true that the appellantrailways did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal, the burden of proof to prove that it was untoward incident and the deceased fell down accidently was on the respondent who failed to prove it. The deceased attempted to catch running train and fell down and died, and therefore, railways are not responsible as it was self inflicted injury within the meaning of proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore, the claim ought to have been denied by the Tribunal. This was evident from the evidence of Vitthal by way of affidavit so also inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and accidental death information. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants opposed the appeal and argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal about untoward incident is a finding of fact based on evidence. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was bonafide passenger on 19/9/2001 in train No. 592 . Mudkhed-Manmad Passenger as is clear from the evidence of AW-2 Vitthal who had lodged the complaint to the police whereupon the deceased was taken to the hospital. The documents filed on record were never disputed by the appellant-railways which are their own documents and now it cannot lie in their mouth that they were not proved. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties for quite some time. Perusal of evidence of AW-2 Vitthal Laxman Tatwad in paragraph 2 shows that deceased Abdul Khadir obtained railway ticket No. 09175 for Rs. 8/- for Mudkhed to Nanded from Mudkhed railway counter. Vitthal used to travel daily between Mudkhed to Nanded for his flower business and had a monthly railway pass. On the fateful day, he accompanied the deceased Abdul Kadir in the said train. 8/- for Mudkhed to Nanded from Mudkhed railway counter. Vitthal used to travel daily between Mudkhed to Nanded for his flower business and had a monthly railway pass. On the fateful day, he accompanied the deceased Abdul Kadir in the said train. This evidence of Vitthal has not at all been shaken in the cross examination. AW-Vitthal further deposed that after obtaining railway ticket both Vitthal and deceased Abdul Kadir boarded the said train and when the train started, there was sudden jerk and Abdul Kadir fell down and came under the train and was seriously injured. Now, the inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and accidental death information which are the documents from police department of the railways in common reveal the following story about the accident. .As per our information and information of police, the above deceased died due to catching the running train and slipped and due to several injuries on the head by the train, he has died.. 5. It is noteworthy that the railways did not adduce any evidence in support of its case and could not shake the evidence of Vitthal who was accompanied deceased Abdul Kadir. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly accepted the said evidence coupled with other evidence on record. Though several decisions were cited before me by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be profitable to quote paragraphs No. 8 to 12, 14 and 17 of judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & others reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 . _____ .8. However, the evidence of D. Sajja, DW 1, who was the Stationmaster at the railway station corroborates the evidence of PW 2. DW 1 had deposed that he saw one girl running towards the train and trying to enter the train and she fell down. He has further stated that the deceased Abja had attempted to board the train and fell down from the running train. For this reason, the Tribunal held that this was not an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of the expression in section 123 (c) of the Railway Act. 1989, as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. 9. In appeal, Kerala High Court was of the view that the deceased sustained injuries, even according to the respondents, in her anxiety to get into the train which was moving . 1989, as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. 9. In appeal, Kerala High Court was of the view that the deceased sustained injuries, even according to the respondents, in her anxiety to get into the train which was moving . Hence, the High Court held that the deceased came within the expression 'accident falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' which is an 'untoward incident', as defined in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989. 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. ao42.04.sxw _____ 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, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12); Transport Corporation of India v. E.S. I. Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 ; etc. 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. 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, the beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic chemical works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 647 (para 7); Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11); Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13); S. M. Nilakjar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12 ); etc. ao42.04.sxw _____ 14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act. We will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by the railway trains since everybody 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 a bona fide passenger, i. e., a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.” 6. For the above reasons, therefore, I do not find any substance in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.