Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 855 (JHR)

Sasthi Kumbhkar v. Union Of India

2018-04-13

RAJESH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Railway. 2. The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 20.03.2013 passed in Case No. OA (II)/RNC/2010/0057 by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that claim petition has been filed by Smt. Sasthi Kumbhakar mentioning therein that her son namely Ashwani Kumbhakar was travelling from train no. 8102 Patratu-Tata-Ranchi Express. At Muri Station, her son namely Ashwani Kumbhakar has got down from the train to fetch drinking water and when he was trying to enter into the train, he fell down as train was in motion, as a result of which his right thigh and hand got amputated due to coming under the wheel and he died on spot. In support of her claim, claimant has enclosed copy of FIR, Fardbyan of Ms. Pushpa Devi, police final report and a dead body carrying certificate. 4. Ms. Pushpa Devi, in her fardbeyan, who was a co-passenger, has stated that Ashwani Kumbhakar was travelling with ticket no. 22305(Ext-A-5) while he (deceased), who was trying to enter into the train at Muri Station after collecting the water, fell down from the train and came under the wheel and his right thigh and hand got amputated as a result of which he died on the spot. 5. The claim Tribunal has framed three issues, which are follows:- "1. Whether the deceased Ashwani Kumbhakar S/O Lt. Shankar Kumbhakar was a bonafide passenger as alleged? 2. Whether any Untoward incident as defined under section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989, occurred to the deceased Ashwani Kumbhakar S/O Lt. Shankar Kumbhakar while travelling from Patratu to Tata Nagar by Train No. 8102 on 30.03.09. 3. Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief if any?" 6. The claim Tribunal has returned the finding that so far as issue no. 1 is concerned, deceased Ashwani Kumbhakar was a bonafide passenger as he was travelling with ticket no. 22305. 7. So far as issue no. 2 is concerned, finding has been returned that as the deceased was boarding running train and as such, this incident does come under the purview of section 124(A) (b) of the Railways Act. 1 is concerned, deceased Ashwani Kumbhakar was a bonafide passenger as he was travelling with ticket no. 22305. 7. So far as issue no. 2 is concerned, finding has been returned that as the deceased was boarding running train and as such, this incident does come under the purview of section 124(A) (b) of the Railways Act. Since the accident is not covered under the definition of untoward incident under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and as such, her claim has been rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the dispute is now in a narrow compass to the extent that whether a passenger tries to enter into a moving train and suffers an accident losing his life, in that case he is covered under the definition of untoward accident or not ? 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, by relying upon a judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Relevant paragraph nos. 8, 11, 14, 17 and 52 of the judgment rendered in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar(Supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- "8. However, the evidence of DW 1, D. Sajjan, who was the Station Master at the railway station corroborates the evidence of PW 2. DW 1 had deposed that he saw one girl running towards the train and trying to enter the train and she fell down. He has further stated that the deceased Abja had attempted to board the train and fell down from the running train. For this reason, the Tribunal held that this was not an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the expression in section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. 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. 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 Railways 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. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. 52. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no fault on the part of the Railways, or that there was contributory negligence, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected." 10. Thus, this issue has been set at rest by the Apex Court that a passenger trying to board a moving train at railway station is covered under the definition of untoward accident and accordingly, he/she is entitled for compensation under section 124(A) of the Railways Act. 11. Thus, this issue has been set at rest by the Apex Court that a passenger trying to board a moving train at railway station is covered under the definition of untoward accident and accordingly, he/she is entitled for compensation under section 124(A) of the Railways Act. 11. In view of the above discussion and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court on this point, this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to get compensation as per the mandate of section 124 A of the Railways Act. 12. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714 , the claimant is entitled for the amount of compensation, which is prevalent today. Para-29 and 30 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon (supra) is quoted hereinbelow for better appreciation:- "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. 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. 30. From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the Rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation." 13. Thus, the claimant will be entitled for the amount of compensation, which is prevalent today. 14. Accordingly, this Court holds that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. Thus, the claimant will be entitled for the amount of compensation, which is prevalent today. 14. Accordingly, this Court holds that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs) as in terms of Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, the statutory amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2017. 15. Respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs) along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimant from the date of claim application. 16. In terms of above direction, the present Misc. Appeal is allowed.