Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1382 (BOM)

Pooja w/o. Lahu Kotlapure v. Union of India

2010-09-21

S.V.GANGAPURWALA

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the Appeal is taken for final hearing. 4. The present appellants had filed claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, U/s.124 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) on account of death of Lahu Kotlapure, who died while travelling by Manmad-Kachiguda Express No.7663 on 3.9.2003. The applicants are the wife, son and parents of deceased Lahu. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, vide its judgment and order dated 30.9.2004, rejected the claim application. The appellants assail the said judgment in the present appeal. 5. That the Tribunal has specifically come to the conclusion that deceased Lahu was a bonafide passenger in train No.7663 Manmad Kachiguda Express. The Tribunal also held that the applicants are the sale dependents of deceased Lahu but on the count that the applicants could not prove that deceased Lahu died in an untoward incident in terms of Section 123(c) of Railways Act has negatived the claim. 6. The Tribunal has negatived the claim by its judgment and order dated 30th September, 2004. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal have approached this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 7. Mr. P. S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and has also come to the conclusion that the applicants are the sole dependents but on an erroneous interpretation has held the injury to be "self-inflicted" injury and not an untoward accident. The Tribunal has held that deceased was standing at the gate and he fell down while standing at the gate. This would come within the ambit and meaning of "untoward incident" and same would not tantamount to "self-inflicted" injury. Inter alia, the appellants would be entitled for compensation of Rs4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) with interest. Mr. Agrawal, relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Union of India Vs., Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others" 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 27 : [2008(5) ALL MR 917 (S.C.)]. 8. Per contra, Mr. M. N, Navandar, learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently contended that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the incident in question was not an "untoward incident but a case of "self-inflicted" injury. 8. Per contra, Mr. M. N, Navandar, learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently contended that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the incident in question was not an "untoward incident but a case of "self-inflicted" injury. The deceased was aware that it is not permissible to stand at the gate of the running train. It was imprudent on his part and the said act is an act of negligence, full hardiness and the same is an act of deceased on its own volition, the same would be squarely covered within the meaning of expression "self-inflicted" injury. According to him, no error is committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim petition. 9. Before proceeding to deal with the rival contentions of the learned counsels, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions and the terminologies. 10. Section 124-A of the Railways Act states: "124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident - When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this Section by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "passenger" includes (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident." (emphasis supplied) Rule 2(e) defines "untoward incident" Untoward incident means an incident defined in clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, "Untoward incident" means "(1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act• within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987), or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers." 11. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the record, pleadings and the judgment delivered by the Tribunal. 12. The factual matrix is not debatable. The factum of accident, the death of deceased Lahu and that the present appellants are the dependents of deceased Lahu has been held by the Tribllnal in its judgment. The only bone of contention is whether the said death of deceased Lahu by fall from the train while standing on the gate of the train would come within the ambit and purview of the expression "untoward incident" or within the meaning of the terminology "self-inflicted injury". 13. Perusal of the relevant provisions referred supra, it is manifest that the said provisions are a part of the beneficial and welfare statute, these provisions are intended for the benefit of the person who has died in such contingency. The Act has defined the term "untoward incident". Bare perusal of the said definition of "untoward incident", it is eloquent that the said definition is an inclusive definition and it also includes an accidental fall of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. The Act has defined the term "untoward incident". Bare perusal of the said definition of "untoward incident", it is eloquent that the said definition is an inclusive definition and it also includes an accidental fall of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If a person is standing on a gate and falls from the said gate of the running train, that would certainly come within the purview of accidental fall from a train. When we say that the provisions are part of a welfare statute then the Rules of interpretation mandates that the interpretation of the said provision shall be made in consonance with the object of the act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made. The beneficial or a welfare statute should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. The words of such a statute must be so construed as to give the most complete remedy which the phraseology will permit so as to secure that the relief contemplated by the statute shall not be denied to the class intended to be relieved. While interpreting welfare Legislation which have to be broadly and liberally construed the Court is more concerned with the colour the content and the context of the statute rather than with its literal import. 14. The Apex Court in case of "Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar" [2008(5) ALL MR 917 (S.C.)] referred supra involving similar question of interpretation of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 has observed thus: "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." 15. The conspectus of the. 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." 15. The conspectus of the. above discussion would lead to the conclusion that if a section in a welfare statute is reasonably capable of two constructions that construction should be preferred which furthers the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to those in whose interest the Act may have been passed and the doubt if any should be resolved In their favour. So in a case of an exception which curtails the operation of beneficient legislation, the Court in case of doubt would construe it narrowly so as not to readily expand the area of scope of exception. 16. The proviso to Section 124-A of the Act carves out an exception for payment of compensation and expression self-inflicted injury is a part of proviso carving out exception, the same shall be construed narrowly. 17. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the contention that a passenger is not supposed to stand at the gate of the compartment in a running train and if he does so it is at his own risk and Respondent would not be responsible as it would amount to self-inflicted injury would be stretching too far the expression "self-inflicted injury". "Self-inflicted injury" would mean injuries which are self-inflicted by the person when he is capable of rational voluntary action. The same would be a wound inflicted by one's self. When a person accidentally falls from the train because of some jerk etc. in such circumstances, it would not amount to "self-inflicted injury" but an "untoward incident". 18. Once having held that fall of deceased was a result of untoward incident, the claimants would be entitled for compensation amount. 19. The quantum of compensation would not be a matter of debate. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, the Central Government has made rules, namely, (Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents) (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which govern the payment of the quantum of compensation on account of death and disability in case of untoward incidents. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, the Central Government has made rules, namely, (Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents) (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which govern the payment of the quantum of compensation on account of death and disability in case of untoward incidents. Under Rule 3 of the said Rules, the Schedule is specified and for death on account of untoward incident, the compensation payable by the Railways is quantified at Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs). As such the appellants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs). 20. Once it is held that the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs), the payment of interest would follow. The payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. As such the awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of Rs.6% p.a. from the date of application before the Tribunal till the actual payment of the same is made. 21. In the result, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Respondent is directed to pay the appellants a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) along with interest at the rate of Rs.6% p.a. from the date of application before the Tribunal till the realisation. (ii) The Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.