Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1629 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2018-07-25

RAJESH KUMAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the railway. 2. The claim petition has been filed on account of accident dated 15.05.2011, wherein Ram Swaroop Singh has died leaving behind his widow and three sons. During pendency of the claim petition the widow has died and accordingly her name has deleted from the array of claimants now the claimants are sons of the deceased. 3. The Claim Tribunal has framed following issues which are quoted hereunder: “(1) Whether the deceased Ram Swaroop Singh S/o late Kesho Singh was a bona-fide passenger as alleged? (2) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (2) of the Railway Act, 1989 occurred to the deceased while travelling in passenger train no. 53611 on 15.05.2011 at Barki Salaiya Railway station? (3) Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation and other relief if any?” 4. So far as, issue no. 1 is concerned regarding bona-fide passenger, the finding has been returned in favour of the claimants holding therein that late Ram Swaroop Singh was bona-fide passenger as ticket has been found from his body. 5. So far as, issue no. 2 is concerned the same has been decided against the claimants on the ground that deceased was standing on the door and it is admitted that the deceased was attempting to alight from running train and accordingly he fell on another track and a goods carrying train run over him which resulted into death. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention to this Court towards the DRM Report. From perusal of DRM Report (Ext-R2), it is clear hat the train was overcrowded and the people were standing on the door and due to rush, deceased fell from the train and subsequently goods carrying train run over him which resulted into death of the deceased. 7. The Claim Tribunal has merely rejected the claim petition only on the basis of submission made in the claim petition but the claimants were not the eyewitness. 8. After incident, reports are prepared by the DRM which is material fact for deciding the claim by the Claim Tribunal. 9. DRM Report dated 28.06.2012 has specifically reported that due to over rush the passenger fell from the train which resulted this incident accordingly, U.D. Case No. 22/2011 has been lodged on 15.05.2011. 10. 8. After incident, reports are prepared by the DRM which is material fact for deciding the claim by the Claim Tribunal. 9. DRM Report dated 28.06.2012 has specifically reported that due to over rush the passenger fell from the train which resulted this incident accordingly, U.D. Case No. 22/2011 has been lodged on 15.05.2011. 10. In view of the above report of the railway, rejection of the claim of the claimants was not justified as per the mandate of judgment rendered by Apex Court reported in 2018 (2) JBCJ 478 (SC) in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi. Accordingly it is held that the incident has come under the definition of untoward incident and he is entitled for compensation from the date of accident i.e. 15.05.2011. A paragraph 16.6 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of self inflicted injury would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on no fault theory. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on no fault theory under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an untoward incident entering a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443 in the case of Jameela and Others vs. Union of India from which paragraphs 6 to 12 are quoted hereunder: “6. Before the High Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the Railways on the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act which provides that no compensation will be payable under that section by the Railway Administration if the passenger died or suffered injury due to: (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him. (b) self-inflicted injury. (c) his own criminal act. Before the High Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the Railways on the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act which provides that no compensation will be payable under that section by the Railway Administration if the passenger died or suffered injury due to: (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him. (b) self-inflicted injury. (c) his own criminal act. A reference was also made to Section 154 of the Act which provides that if any person does any act in a rash and negligent manner, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon any Railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. It was further contended on behalf of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was standing at the door from where he fell down near Magarwara Railway Station, where the train does not stop. (It needs to be pointed out that this contention could only be based on speculation, as admittedly there was no eyewitness to the accident.) The High Court accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the Railways and allowed the appeal observing as follows: “On the basis of the law and facts indicated by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the present case the victim is to be blamed for the incident being negligent and therefore this case is not covered by the definition of untoward incident. However, so far as the compensation is concerned the case of the claimant is covered by the provision of Section 124A as because of his own negligence the deceased had fallen down from the train which caused his death. Further, in the light of the fact that the deceased acted in a negligent manner without any precaution of safety by station (sic) going at the open door of the running train which resulted into his death.” 7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act. 8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has definition clauses. Clause (c) defines “untoward incident” which insofar as relevant for the present case is as under: “123. (c) untoward incident means:- (1)(i)-(iii) * * * (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 9. Section 124-A of the Act provides 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. (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. (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.” 10. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a “passenger” for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). 11. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railways that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. 12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” 12. Accordingly, this Court grants compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) to the claimants as per the mandate of Apex Court in case of Rina Devi (supra) with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 15.05.2011. 13. Prevailing rate of compensation is Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs) since 2017 and as per the mandate of Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra), claimants are entitled for Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs). 14. As present rate of compensation is higher, claimants are granted Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs) as compensation. 15. With above direction, the present appeal is hereby allowed. Appeal allowed.