Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1082 (GAU)

Atikur Rahman v. Union of India

2019-09-19

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. I.A Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-railways. 2. The appellant had made a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati resulting in the claim application No. OA.IIU-OY/2009 (OLD) and OA(IIu)GHY/2009/0007(NEW). According to the appellant, while he was travelling in the train Northeast Express from Delhi to Guwahati with a valid journey ticket, he fell down from the train at Sahdepur Kamal Station in Bihar on 17.8.2008 and as a result of falling down, he sustained grievous injuries on his left foot. He was taken to the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Eastern Central Railway at Garhara, where as a result of the accident, there was an amputation of his leg. 3. In course of the claim proceeding before the Tribunal, the appellant had exhibited a portion of the original railway journey ticket bearing No. 39285573, which was blood stained along with the medical documents, the disability certificate and some medical bills, etc. The respondent- railways had not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal. Admittedly the claim of the appellant was made under section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Provisions of section 124A are as follows “124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident. - 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 dependent 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 purpose 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, or any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” 4. Section 124A provides that when in the course of working a railway untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there had been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration, such passenger who sustained injuries or the dependent of the passenger who had been killed, would be entitled to payment of a compensation as may be prescribed. 5. The proviso to section 124A provides for five instances which upon being satisfied, a compensation would not be required to be paid. The five instances are suicide or attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, own criminal act, any act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity or any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment became necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. 6. Again the Explanation to section 124A provides that for the purpose of being a passenger under section 124A, it shall also include a railway servant on duty and a person who had purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket holder who becomes a victim of an untoward incident. 7. We have taken note of that in order to be entitled for a compensation under section 124A, the person concerned who makes the claim or on whose death the claim is being made, has to be the victim of an untoward incident. 8. 7. We have taken note of that in order to be entitled for a compensation under section 124A, the person concerned who makes the claim or on whose death the claim is being made, has to be the victim of an untoward incident. 8. Section 123(c) defines untoward incident, which is as follows “untoward incident means- (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 9. Section 123(c)(2) provides that an accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident. Again Explanation to section 124A provides that a person who had purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers would be included to be a passenger. 10. In other words, the core requirement of a claim under section 124A would be that the person who makes the claim for injuries or on whose behalf a claim is made on account of death had a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers. 11. In the instant case, the appellant-claimant had exhibited a half portion of an original railway journey ticket bearing No. 39285573, which was exhibited as Exhibit-A1. The railways had not adduced any evidence as regards the authenticity and validity of the said half portion of the original railway journey ticket, which was exhibited by the appellant nor any material had been adduced by the railway administration that the ticket so exhibited was not a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers nor that it was not purchased by the appellant-claimant. All that Railway Claims Tribunal in its judgment dated 28.12.2010 inferred was that it was a train ticket for 17 kilometres whereas the appellant had stated that he was travelling by the Northeast Express from Delhi to Guwahati. All that Railway Claims Tribunal in its judgment dated 28.12.2010 inferred was that it was a train ticket for 17 kilometres whereas the appellant had stated that he was travelling by the Northeast Express from Delhi to Guwahati. A distinction is sought to be made by the Claims Tribunal that Northeast Express starts from New Delhi to Guwahati and not Delhi to Guwahati. This distinction in our view is immaterial as long as trains came from Delhi to Guwahati and such distinction in our view would be a hyper technical distinction. A further reason arrived at by the Claims Tribunal is that the ticket exhibited by the appellant-claimant was for 17 kilometres whereas the distance between New Delhi to Guwahati is not less than 1900 kilometres. 12. A passenger may have been travelling from Delhi to Guwahati and in the claim statement a statement to that extent may be made. But, when we look at the requirement of the Exception to section 124A which provides for the meaning of a passenger, a passenger would include a person who had purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train. If at the place where the accident had taken place, the person travelling by a train had a valid ticket for travelling at that relevant point of time when the untoward incident took place, it cannot be construed that the person concerned did not purchase a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers. It is material from where the passenger came from or where he had intended to proceed or whether he had any valid ticket for the whole of the journey. The reasoning of the Claims Tribunal is that as the appellant was travelling from Delhi to Guwahati, therefore, the 17 kilometres ticket could not have been a valid ticket. 13. We are unable to subscribe to the same view considering the meaning of the word ‘passenger’ the Exception to section 124A. Under section 124A as already stated all that the passenger is required to prove is that at the time when the accident had taken place, he had purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, meaning thereby that within the stretch between which the accident took place, for that particular stretch, the passenger had a valid ticket. Under section 124A as already stated all that the passenger is required to prove is that at the time when the accident had taken place, he had purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, meaning thereby that within the stretch between which the accident took place, for that particular stretch, the passenger had a valid ticket. The respondent- railways having not adduced any evidence, no definite conclusion can be arrived as to whether the Exhibit-Al ticket No. 39285573 was a valid ticket for travelling in the Northeast Express on 17.8.2008 between any station prior to the place where the accident had taken place up to any station subsequent to the place where the accident took place. 14. If the records of the railway authorities reveal that it was a ticket for any other purpose, it will be sufficient evidence on record to show that the appellant-claimant did not have a valid ticket to travel and, therefore, he was not a passenger. But, on the other hand, if the ticket was for the purpose to travel on the given day, which could have been used for travelling in the concerned train and was for the purpose for travelling from a station prior to the place where the accident took place up to a station subsequent to the place of the accident, an appropriate satisfaction cannot be arrived at that it was not valid ticket for travelling by a train by which the appellant had claimed to have travelled. 15. Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent-railways also raises an issue that no amputation of leg was suffered by the claimant-appellant in the accident referred by him. If it is so, the railways may produce appropriate evidence and require the claimant to be produced before the Tribunal for a verification and adjudication as to whether he had any amputation. 16. Another relevant consideration would be whether the Exhibit-A1 ticket was issued prior to the accident having been taken place or it was subsequent to the accident. Such a determination would rule out the possibility that the ticket relied upon was fraudulently procured in order to substantiate the claim. 16. Another relevant consideration would be whether the Exhibit-A1 ticket was issued prior to the accident having been taken place or it was subsequent to the accident. Such a determination would rule out the possibility that the ticket relied upon was fraudulently procured in order to substantiate the claim. The whole attitude of the respondent-railway authorities was to rely on assumption and presumptions that the said ticket could not have been a valid journey ticket at the time when the accident had taken place rather than to reveal it from their records that the ticket so produced was not a valid journey ticket at the time when the accident had taken place. 17. For the purpose, we remand the matter back to the Railway Claims Tribunal for an appropriate determination as indicated above. 18. In terms of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.