Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 397 (BOM)

Kavita v. Union of India

2018-02-09

MANISH PITALE

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the death of the husband of appellant no.1 occurred on account of “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The appellant no.1 being the widow, appellant nos. 2 to 4 being the children and appellant no.5 being the mother of the deceased had filed a claim petition under the provisions of the aforesaid Act claiming compensation for the death of Sanjay Awachare (deceased) on 30.03.2012, when he accidentally fell down from a running train while travelling from Bodwad to Bhusawal. The claim petition has been dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove that the death occurred on account of “untoward incident” as defined under the provisions of the said Act. 2. On 30.03.2012 at about 3 p.m. a memo was issued to the Police Inspector, Bodwad Police Station by the Deputy Station Superintendent of Bodwad Railway Station stating that driver of a goods train had informed that body of an unknown person was lying on the railway track at the spot of the incident between Bodwad and Bhusawal. On the basis of the said memo, a report of accidental death was recorded under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at about 5.30 p.m. on 30.03.2012. An inquest panchanama and spot panchanama were prepared on the same day and the body was sent for post mortem examination. While the spot panchanama recorded that the body of the deceased was sent to the Rural Hospital, Bodwad, there was nothing found at the spot of the incident for being seized, but, the inquest panchanama of the body recorded the details of the clothes on the body of the deceased and the fact that a ticket bearing No. 54070614 was found in the pocket of the pant of the deceased. 3. On the basis of the said incident, the appellants filed claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, praying for grant of compensation in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The ticket dated 30.03.2012 found from the body of the deceased and other documents, including inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and post mortem report, were placed on record before the Tribunal. The ticket dated 30.03.2012 found from the body of the deceased and other documents, including inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and post mortem report, were placed on record before the Tribunal. The appellant no.1, being the widow of the deceased, appeared as witness no.1 in support of the claim petition and father of the deceased appeared as witness no.2. The Deputy Station Superintendent of Bodwad Railway Station appeared as witness on behalf of the respondent, Union of India, through the General manager, Central Railway. 4. The Tribunal passed its judgment and order on 06.08.2015 dismissing the claim petition/application of the appellants. The tribunal held that the claimants/appellants had failed to produce sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record to prove that the deceased had died on account of “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the said Act. It was held that when this basic requirement was not proved, the claim of compensation could not be considered on merits at all. The tribunal held that the evidence on record was not enough to show that the deceased had fallen from running train and that therefore, when the basic ingredients for proving the “untoward incident” were not proved, no relief could be granted to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. Mrs. M.P. Kshirsagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the approach adopted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment and order was not only erroneous but that it was hyper technical in nature. It was submitted that when the ticket recovered from the body of the deceased was on record, which was also mentioned in the inquest panchanama, the emphasis placed by the tribunal on the spot panchanama showing lack of recovery or seizure of property, was wholly erroneous. It was submitted that the oral and documentary evidence on record was misconstrued by the tribunal rendering the impugned judgment and order unsustainable. It was further submitted that the view taken by the tribunal deserved to be reversed and in view of Gazette Notification dated 22.12.2016 issued by the respondent, the appellants deserved enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under the provisions of the said Act. It was further submitted that the view taken by the tribunal deserved to be reversed and in view of Gazette Notification dated 22.12.2016 issued by the respondent, the appellants deserved enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under the provisions of the said Act. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the case of Rathi Menon vs. Union of India- (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 714, Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar -(2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527, the judgment and order dated 20.06.2017 (Dilip Madhukar Ogle and others vs. Union of India) passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 145/2010 and judgment and order dated 01.07.2017 (The Union of India vs. Dhurpatabai Kondiba Gomsale and another) passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 305/2010. 6. Per contra, Mr. N.P. Lambat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal did not deserve interference because it was based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. It was submitted that the material on record was insufficient to come to a conclusion that the victim had died because of an “untoward incident” as defined under the provisions of the said Act. It was submitted that there were no eyewitness to the incident and it could not be said that the deceased had fallen from a running train when the incident occurred. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on order dated 01.02.2017 (Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil ) No. 26625 of 2015 and order dated 25.04.2017 (Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways Bilaspur) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5608/2017 as also order dated 25.08.2017 passed in M.A. No. 411/2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5608/2017 (Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways Bilaspur). 7. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the evidence and material on record, two points arise for determination in this appeal, firstly, whether the tribunal was justified in holding that appellants were not entitled for compensation because it was not established that the victim had died on account of “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the said Act and secondly, if so, whether the appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under the provisions of the said Act, in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 22.12.2016 issued by the respondent or they were entitled only to Rs.4,00,000/- as provided under the unamended Rules existing prior to the aforesaid Gazette Notification. 8. A perusal of the evidence and material on record shows that the body of the deceased was found lying on the Railway track and its intimation was given by the Deputy Station Superintendent of Bodwad Railway Station to the Police at about 3 p.m. on 30.03.2012. In pursuance of the same, a report of accidental death was recorded at about 5.30 p.m. and inquest panchanamna of the body was conducted between 6 p.m. and 6.45 p.m. and spot panchanama was recorded between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. The tribunal has wrongly recorded in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and order that the spot panchanama was prepared between 5 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. A perusal of the spot panchanama shows that in paragraph 18, pertaining to description of place of occurrence, it was recorded that the body of the deceased was sent to Rural Hospital at Bodwad and that at the spot of the incident nothing was found worth seizing. It is further found in the spot panchanama that paragraph 12 pertaining to description of physical evidence from the scene of crime for the property recovered/seized for the purpose of investigation, is blank. A perusal of the inquest panchanamna shows that in paragraph 25, apart from recording the details of clothes found on the body of the deceased, it is recorded that ticket no. 54070614 was found in the pocket of the pant. The said ticket was indeed placed on record before the tribunal and a perusal of the same shows that it was issued at 12.17 p.m. on 30.03.2012. 9. 54070614 was found in the pocket of the pant. The said ticket was indeed placed on record before the tribunal and a perusal of the same shows that it was issued at 12.17 p.m. on 30.03.2012. 9. The tribunal has analysed the aforesaid material on record to arrive at the conclusion that since paragraph 12 of the spot panchanama was blank, the seizure of the ticket recorded in the inquest panchanama was not believable. It is held by the tribunal that since there is no eyewitness to show that the deceased had indeed purchased the said ticket and because recovery of other articles, apart from the ticket, has not been mentioned in the spot panchanama, the said ticket is manipulated and procured in connivance with unscrupulous elements. The tribunal has held that since nothing was recorded to have been seized in the spot panchanama, it was intriguing that only journey ticket was found on the body of the deceased. The aforesaid findings of the Tribunal appear to be based on erroneous appreciation of the evidence and material on record. The Tribunal has erred in placing emphasis on paragraph 12 of the spot panchanama being blank and that seizure of the ticket was not recorded therein. It has also erred in holding that since there was no eyewitness to the fact that the deceased had actually purchased the said ticket or that the appellant no.1, in her cross-examination stated that the wallet of the deceased was given to her by the Police, it was evident that the aforesaid ticket and its recovery were manipulated. The said findings of the tribunal are unsustainable because the ticket purchased at 12.17 p.m. on 30.03.2012 was very much produced on record in the evidence. The inquest panchanama clearly recorded that it was seized or recovered from the pocket of the pant that was worn by the deceased. Merely because the seizure of the same was not mentioned in the spot panchanama, would not render the same suspicious. In fact, in paragraph 8, it is recorded in the spot panchanama that the body of the deceased was already sent to the Rural Hospital Bodwad and that, therefore, there was nothing worth seizure found at the place of incident. Merely because the seizure of the same was not mentioned in the spot panchanama, would not render the same suspicious. In fact, in paragraph 8, it is recorded in the spot panchanama that the body of the deceased was already sent to the Rural Hospital Bodwad and that, therefore, there was nothing worth seizure found at the place of incident. The approach of the Tribunal is not only erroneous but hyper technical, because it cannot be that in all such cases of claims filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal there would be an eyewitness to the actual fact of purchase of journey ticket by the deceased. In this case, the time of issuance of ticket, stated on the ticket, which was placed on record and which was recovered from the body of the deceased, clearly demonstrated that the deceased was indeed travelling between Bodwad and Bhusawal at the time of the incident. 10. The tribunal has further held that the appellants failed to prove that the death of the victim had occurred due to untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the said Act. In order to arrive at the said conclusion, the tribunal has held that there was no eyewitness to show that the deceased had actually fallen from running train, that the distance between Bodwad and the place of the incident was only 3 km and that there was no statement in the claim petition that the deceased fell from the running train due to jerk. The Tribunal also analysed the medical evidence, including the post mortem report, to hold that the nature of injuries were such that it could not be said that the deceased had indeed fallen from a running train. 11. The reasoning adopted by the tribunal while reaching the said conclusion is not in accordance with the law laid down in the context of the provisions of the said Act. In the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where two constructions or interpretations are possible on the basis of material on record, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the persons for whom the Act was made, should be preferred. It was held that since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act was a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrower and technical one. The relevant portions of the said judgment are as follows:- "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 vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9), B. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12) and Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc. 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. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647 (para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12)." 12. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a liberal view and it has been laid down that if a restricted meaning is adopted in interpreting Section 123 (c) of the said Act, it would amount to depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12)." 12. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a liberal view and it has been laid down that if a restricted meaning is adopted in interpreting Section 123 (c) of the said Act, it would amount to depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. Applying the aforesaid position of law to the facts of the present case, it would be evident that the Tribunal has taken a hyper technical view in the matter and the evidence and material on record has not been properly construed while dismissing the claim petition of the appellants. In my opinion, there was sufficient material on record to show that the deceased was travelling on the railway ticket placed on record and that his death did occur while travelling in the train and that the appellants were entitled for compensation under Section 124-A of the said Act. 13. The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India (supra) is misplaced, because the same is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, there was no ticket recovered from the body of the deceased and therefore, there was proof of the fact that the deceased met with an accident while travelling in a train. As regards the medical evidence on record and the condition of the body of the deceased, the Tribunal has erred in concluding that such injuries and condition of the body of the deceased could not have been found if he would have fallen from a moving train. I do not find any substance in the said conclusion because it is very much possible for a person to fall from a moving train and his body being cut to pieces upon being run over by a moving train. 14. Having found that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition of the appellants, the second aspect that remains to be decided is, the quantum of compensation to which the appellants are entitled. 14. Having found that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition of the appellants, the second aspect that remains to be decided is, the quantum of compensation to which the appellants are entitled. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has placed on record Gazette Notification dated 22.12.2016, issued by the respondents, whereby the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 have been amended and instead of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-payable in cases of death, the same has been substituted by an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that they are entitled for such enhanced quantum of compensation. 15. In this regard, a similar question had arisen in the case of Rathi Menon vs. Union of India (supra) wherein the claimants had claimed similar enhanced compensation when, by a similar amendment, the quantum was increased from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- with effect from 01.11.1997. The incident in the said case had occurred on 03.09.1996 when the lesser amount of compensation was payable under the Rules, but, the tribunal had granted the higher amount consequent to the amendment which came into effect from 01.11.1997. This was reversed by the High Court on the ground that the claimant was not entitled to the enhanced amount, because the incident had occurred prior to the amendment coming into effect. When the claimant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the High Court, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the view of the High court was not sustainable. It was held that the use of the words “as may be prescribed” in Section 124-A of the Act ought to be understood to mean “as may be prescribed from time to time” in the context of payment of compensation. It was also held that even if such amendment came up after the Tribunal had determined the amount of compensation and the matter was in appeal, the claimant was entitled to the enhanced quantum of compensation, pursuant to the amendment. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- "23. The collocation of the words as may be prescribed in Section 124A of the Act is to be understood as to mean as may be prescribed from time to time. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- "23. The collocation of the words as may be prescribed in Section 124A of the Act is to be understood as to mean as may be prescribed from time to time. The relevance of the date of untoward incident is that the right to claim compensation from the Railway Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. The statute did not fix the amount of compensation, but left it to be determined by the Central Government from time to time by means of rules. This delegation to the Central Government indicates that it was difficult for the Parliament to fix the amount because compensation amount is a varying phenomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous position to ascertain what would be the just and reasonable compensation in respect of a myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into account very many factors. What the legislature wanted was that the victim of the accident must be paid compensation and the amount must represent a reality which means the amount should be fair and reasonable compensation. Government have the better wherewithals to ascertain and fix such amount. It is for the said reason that the Parliament left it to the Government to discharge that function. Sections 124 and 124A of the Act speak the same language that the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation. As pointed above, it is the liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed. Hence the time of ordering payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of the compensation which is prescribed by the rules to be disbursed to the claimant. xxxx 29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident." 16. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by this court in numerous judgments, including judgment and order in First Appeal No. 145/2010 (Dilip Madhukar Ogle and others vs. Union of India) and in First Appeal No. 305/2010 (The Union of India vs. Dhurpatabai Kondiba Gomsale and another). In fact, in the case of First Appeal No. 305/2010 this Court has held in an appeal filed by the Union of India against the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal that, even in the absence of an appeal preferred by the claimants for enhanced compensation, in view of the aforesaid Gazette Notification dated 22.12.2016, the claimants were entitled to such enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. These judgments are a complete answer to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent that the benefit of Gazette Notification dated 22.12.2016 would be available only to victims of accidents that may occur after 01.01.2017 as it is stated in the said notification that the amendment of the relevant Rules shall come into force from 01.01.2017. In fact, the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 5608/2017 and order dated 25.08.2017 passed in M.A. No. 411/2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5608/2017, is misplaced because there is no discussion in the said orders regarding the position of law as enunciated in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rathi Menon vs. Union of India (supra). 17. 17. In the light of the above, it is evident that the appellants deserve to succeed on both counts i.e. firstly the fact that they have successfully proved their entitlement to compensation under the provisions of the said Act, due to the death that occurred in an “untoward incident” and secondly that they are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- as per the latest amended Rules brought into force by the Gazette Notification dated 22.12.2016. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the tribunal is quashed and set aside and it is held that the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % P.A. from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.