Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 584 (JHR)

Sheela Karua v. Union of India

2016-04-07

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER : I.A. No. 6038 of 2014 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 360 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent is in attendance. 3. In view of the reasons assigned in paras – 4 & 5 of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. I.A. No.6038 of 2014 stands allowed. M.A. No.460 of 2014 5. The present miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2011/0006, whereby the application of he appellant for compensation under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989, was rejected. 6. Heard. The claim of the appellant has been declined on the ground that the injuries sustained by the deceased Raju Karua was self-inflicted due to his own negligence. 7. It is amply clear from the impugned order that the issue No.1 “ Whether the deceased Raju Karua, S/o Ratnakar Karua was a bonafide passenger as alleged?” has been decided in favour of the claimant holding that the deceased was travelling from Tata to Chandrakona Road on 2nd class ticket no.A59048/57 dated 01.11.2009, which is filed as Extb – A-6. The case of the claimant-applicant is that Raju Karua (since deceased) slipped and fell down while re-boarding the train consequent thereto, he sustained injuries and was taken to the Gidhini Railway Hospital for treatment thereafter he was referred to Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur, however, he succumbed to the injuries. In terms of the Explanation in Section 124A and Section 2(29) of the Act, the deceased was a passenger travelling with a valid ticket. 8. In terms of the Explanation in Section 124A and Section 2(29) of the Act, the deceased was a passenger travelling with a valid ticket. 8. In this context it is relevant to refer to Section 124(A) of the Act, which 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.” 9. On plain reading of the provisions of Section 124(A), the liability to pay compensation is regardless or irrespective of any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the railway administration. The liability to pay compensation is not attracted in case of the death of the passenger or injury sustained by the passenger as per exceptions provided in clauses (a) to (e), however the burden lies on the Railway administration to prove the circumstances as enumerated in the above clauses to escape the liability to pay the compensation and in the absence of any proof, the inference or presumption is that the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. The terms 'untoward incident' is defined in section 123(c) of the Act and it includes “accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. 10. 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 ”. 11. 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 and held that Section 124-A lays down strict liability in case of railway accidents, therefore, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is not relevant as who was at fault. 12. Therefore, considering the settled proposition of law, the discussion made and the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the deceased was a victim of untoward incident as he sustained injuries when he slipped and fell down while trying to re-board the train. 12. Therefore, considering the settled proposition of law, the discussion made and the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the deceased was a victim of untoward incident as he sustained injuries when he slipped and fell down while trying to re-board the train. Admittedly he was a bonafide passenger and in the absence of any proof led by the Railways to show that the injury on the deceased was self inflicted, the 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/- (Rupees four lakhs) to the appellant in terms of Schedule of Rule 4 of the Railways Accident Untoward Incidents (Compensation), Rules, 1990 with interest @ 9% from the date of the application, within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Railways Administration shall be liable to pay the interest @ 12%, thereafter. 13. In the result this appeal stands allowed.