Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1282 (JHR)

Pramila Devi v. Union of India

2015-10-13

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2015
Order : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 03.09.2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in connection with Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0117 (Old No. OU-70049/07) whereby petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief is that Rajendra Prasad Sharma aged 45 years fell down accidentally at Khanudih Railway Station in course of getting into the D.M.U. Down train on 06.05.2007. His left leg crushed and he was removed to PMCH, Dhanbad for his treatment but could not survive. The appellant no.1-Pramila Devi happens to be the wife of the deceased whereas appellant no. 2 to 4 are daughters and son. 3. The appellants filed a petition for grant of compensation in lieu of death of Rajendra Prasad Sharma, who died in course of travelling in the train. 4. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Tribunal has admitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he was travelling on the basis of valid ticket but refused to grant compensation on the ground that the deceased sustained injuries due to his negligence. He was trying to board in the running train after getting his bag which was left on the platform. In course of boarding in the train, he fell down and caught under wheels. The incident does not come under any of the category of 'Untoward Incident' under Section 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124(A) of the Railway Act. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the judgment in the case of “Union of India Vrs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar”, reported in 2008(9) SCC 527 and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly refused to grant compensation. 6. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 7. I have gone through the judgment cited above. Their Lordships have elaborately discussed the circumstances of 'Untoward Incident' and held as under in paragraph nos. 11,12 & 14. Para 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 abovementioned 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 (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty V. Ceat Ltd (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. Of India V. ESI Corpn. Para 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, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority (AIR para 11), Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. (AIR para 13), S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager (SCC para 12). Para 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 Railway 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 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.” 8. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.” 8. In the circumstances stated above and also placing reliance on the judgment cited, I feel inclined to allow the appeal and accordingly the findings given by the Tribunal under issue no.2 & 3 are hereby set aside and the appellants are directed to be paid Rs. 4,00,000/-as compensation, as indicated under the Schedule of the Railways Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990. The amount of compensation shall also carry @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the payment of compensation amount. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.