Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1697 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Leela Devi

2013-09-24

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Union of India under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the order dated 12.12.2001 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in claim case no. OA-II-01/2001, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @9% for the the death of Sh. Tara Chand, who died in the accident. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents/claimants had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of Sh. Tara Chand, who was traveling in the train being 4708 Ranakpur Express going from Bandra Terminus to Bikaner on 3.11.2000. According to the claimants, while spitting out from the compartment (gate), when the said train was passing through Hanwant Station, his head was struck with the signal pole, as a result of which he fell down from the running train and died. 3. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who fell down from the running train and hence his case was covered under the "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c) for the purpose of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to submit that the case of the deceased would fall under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, which would dis-entitle the claimants to claim compensation under the said provision. According to him, the deceased had died on account of his own negligence which should be construed as the self inflicted injury and hence the proviso would come into play. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the deceased had died in an untoward incident and hence the claimants were entitled to the compensation for his death. 5. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that it was not disputed by the appellants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question. 5. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that it was not disputed by the appellants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question. Now Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines 'untoward incident' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, and Section 124A of the Said Act lays down strict liability or no fault liability on the railway administration to pay compensation to the dependent of the passenger who died on account of such untoward incident, or to the passenger who received injuries on account of such untoward incident. If the case falls within the purview of Section 124A, it is not relevant as to who was at fault. Of course, no compensation shall be payable under the said provision, if the case falls under any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to the said Section 124A, however, in such case the burden would be on the railway authorities to prove that the case fell under the proviso. It is also well settled proposition of law that beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal interpretation which is in consonance with the object of the Act, and for the benefit of the persons for whom the Act is made. 6. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the appellants having failed to point out that the deceased had died on account of any of the reasons mentioned in the proviso to Section 124A, and the respondents-claimants having established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who died on account of the untoward incident, the appellant authorities were liable to pay the compensation under the said Act. 7. In that view of the matter, this court does not find any substance in the appeal. It being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******