Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1020 (JHR)

Rika Verma v. Union of India

2015-08-26

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.05.2015 passed by Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2014/0006, whereby the appellant's claim for compensation was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it would be evident from the impugned order that the Tribunal, while deciding the issues as to whether the deceased-Ritlal Prasad Kushwaha was a bonafide passenger or not, has held that on the date of the incident i.e. on 11.02.2008 the deceased was travelling, Ex-Hazaribag Road to Delhi on a valid ticket. It is submitted that the information report (Annexure-1) given on the Guard/Breakman's Appearance register to the Officer-in-Charge of the Railway Protection Force, at Ghaziabad, Railway station, it is stated that while deboarding train No. 2817, Swarn Jayanti Express, the deceased came under the wheels of the train which is corroborated by Annexure-2 and the inquest report, Annexure-3. That Annexure-4 is the report of the Officer-in-Charge of G.R.P, Gaziabad, wherein it is stated that the witnesses have stated that the deceased slipped at platform No.5 while getting down at Gaziabad Railway station and came under the wheels of the train whereby he sustained injuries resulting in his death. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Tribunal has rejected the claim for compensation on the basis of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the train does not have any scheduled stoppage at Gaziabad and the deceased met with the accident because he attempted to alight from the running train. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to his own negligence. It is argued that such a finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the material evidence on record. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and Swarn Jayanti Express on which the deceased was travelling does not have any scheduled stoppage at Gaziabad. It is submitted that deceased died due to his own fault while trying to de-board from the running train. Thus in the given circumstances, it was the reckless and negligent act of the deceased which was the cause of his death, hence the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim for compensation. 4. Heard. Perused the impugned order and documents. It is submitted that deceased died due to his own fault while trying to de-board from the running train. Thus in the given circumstances, it was the reckless and negligent act of the deceased which was the cause of his death, hence the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim for compensation. 4. Heard. Perused the impugned order and documents. It is evident from the information report at Annexure-1, and the report of the Officer-in-Charge of G.R.P., Gaziabad that the deceased slipped while getting down at platform No.5, from the train No. 2817, Swarn Jayanti Express at Ghaziabad Railway station, and he came under the train. The post-mortem report also proves that the deceased died on account of the said accident. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways has not brought any document in support of his contention that the train did not have any scheduled stoppage at Gaziabad or that the deceased had tried to get off from the running train. In fact, Annexure-1 is the information report given on the format of Guard/Breakman's Appearance register to the Officer-in-Charge of Railway Protection Force, Ghaziabad wherein it is categorically stating that the deceased came under the train as he slipped while getting down from the train at platform No. 5 of Ghaziabad Railway station. 5. It is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act, 1989, which provides that accident of any passenger of the train is an untoward incident. 5. It is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act, 1989, which provides that accident of any passenger of the train is an untoward incident. Section 124(A) of the Act reads as follows:- “ 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.- 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 dependant 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 purposes 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.” 6. It is amply clear from the the impugned order that the issue No.1 “Whether Ritlal Prasad Kushwaha was a bonafide passenger as alleged?” has been decided in favour of the claimant holding that the deceased was travelling on a valid ticket. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a victim of any untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124-A by holding that the deceased tried to get down from the running train which does not have scheduled stoppage at Ghazibad Railway Station is not substantiated by any material evidence on record. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a victim of any untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124-A by holding that the deceased tried to get down from the running train which does not have scheduled stoppage at Ghazibad Railway Station is not substantiated by any material evidence on record. On the contrary as noticed above, the Annexures support the fact that the deceased had slipped while getting down from the train at platform No. 5 and came under the wheels resulting in his death. 7. It is not disputed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling on a valid ticket, in terms of Section 124(A). Section 124-A contemplates the liability of the Railways to pay compensation regardless of any wrongful act negligent or default on the part of the Railway Administration, however the liability is not attracted in case of the death of the passenger or injury caused to him due to any of the reasons contemplated in clauses (a) to (e). 8. In this context it is relevant to refer to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 “ 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 reported in (2003) 4 SCC 524 ”. 9. 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 reported in (2003) 4 SCC 524 ”. 9. It was further observed that it is settled proposition that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statue 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 would be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statues should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. 10. Therefore, considering the settled proposition of law and in the backdrop of the discussion made of the evidence on record it is explicit that the deceased met with the untoward incident while travelling as a passenger in the train consequently liability to pay the compensation in the present case in terms of Section 124(A) lies on the Railway Administration. Accordingly, Railway Administration is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakhs) in terms of Schedule Rule 4 of the Railways Accident Untoward Incidents (Compensation), Rules, 1990 with interest @ 9% from the date of incident within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Railways Administration shall be liable to pay the interest @ 12%, thereafter. 11. In the result this appeal stands allowed.