JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) I.A. No.8347 of 2019 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is delay of 739 days in preferring the appeal and the reason has been explained in para 3 of the I.A. and considering the holistic view of the matter as well as merit of the appeal, the delay may be condoned and if the delay is not condoned in such a benevolent legislation, irreparable loss will be caused to the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer. 3. Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 739 days in preferring the appeal. 4. Accordingly, delay of 739 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. I.A. No.8347 of 2019 stands disposed of. M.A. No. 479 of 2014 6. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order/judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed in Case No.TAU/RNC/2003/0053 whereby the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi has dismissed the claim application under Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989 on the ground that in view of analysis of issue no.1, this is a case of self-inflicted injury and falls under the exception to Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 13.06.2003 Sri Raju Ranjan Singh (father of the appellant, Boudhi Singh) after purchasing a valid ticket of IInd Class from Gomoh to Tetulmari Railway Station boarded the MEMU 36 DN GMO-ASN Psgr. There was heavy rush inside the train. When the train reached near Km 398/10 – 398/12, the deceased stood up to attend the natural call but because of the jolt, he fell down and died in a railway accident unfortunately. The head of the deceased was completely smashed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered smashing of the head to be a self-inflicted injury which can be caused only because of fall of a person. Deceased, who has purchased a ticket, as being bona-fide passenger for travelling through train will not commit suicide in such a manner. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 at para 29, which is quoted hereunder:- “29. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 at para 29, which is quoted hereunder:- “29. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances.”. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the issue of bona-fide passenger though there is evidence of A.W.2 (Munna Yadav) in paras 2 to 6, which are profitably quoted herein:- ^^2- ;g fd fnukad 13-06-2003 dks Vsªu la[;k 038 Dn. EMU xkseks&vklulksy lokjh xkM+h ls eSa ,oa e`rd nksLr xkseks jsoys LVs'ku ls rqrqyekjh jsyos LVs'ku dk f}rh; Js.kh dk fVdV dVkdj oS| ;k=h ds :i esa lokj gksdj viuk ?kj ykSV jgk FkkA 3- ;g fd mijksDr Vsªu esa ;kf=;ksa dh ges'kk HkhM+ jgk djrh gS ,oa ?kVuk ds fnu Hkh mDr Vsªu esa ;kf=;ksa dh dkQh HkhM+ FkhA 4- ;g fd eSa ,oa e`rd nksLr ,d gh cksxh esa ,d gh txg cSBs FksA mDr xkM+h yxHkx 9%15 cts xkseks ls [kqy x;h FkhA 5- ;g fd ;k=k ds Øe esa tc mijksDr xkM+h [kleh QkVd ikj dj jgh Fkh fd esjk nksLRk VkW;ysV gsrq lhV ij ls mBdj xsV ds ikl tk jgk Fkk ,oa xsV ds ikl igqapus gh okyk Fkk fd ;kf=;ksa dh HkhM+ ,oa &#2338dsyk&&#2338dsyh ds QyLo:i esjk nksLr mlarqfyr gks xc;k vkSj pyrh Vsªu ls fdñehñ 398@10&398@12 ds chp fxj x;kA QyLo:i og xaHkhj :i ls t[eh gks x;k ,oa ?kVuk LFky ij gh mldh e`R;q gks x;hA6- ;g fd FkksM+h nsj ckn mijksDr xkM+h tc erkjh jsyos LVs'ku igqaph rks eSaus ?kVuk dh lwpuk erkjh LVs'ku ekLVj dks fn;k ,oa xkseks LVs'ku vkdj xkseks LVs'ku esa Hkh ?kVuk dh lwpuk fn;kA rRi'pkr~ eSaus cjsyh iSlsUtj ls ?kj vkdj ?kVuk dh lwpuk e`rd ds ?kj ij igqap dj ds Hkh fn;kA bl le; jkf= ds djhc 12%00 ct jgk FkkA rRi'pkr~ eSa Hkh viuk ?kj pyk x;kA**</UL>11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment at para 29, the evidence adduced by A.W.2 (Munna Yadav) has not been controverted by the Railway by bringing any evidence on record, as such, deceased was a bona-fide passenger.12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that with respect to untoward incident the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in <a href='00100043299'>2008 (9) SCC 527</a>, paras 14 to 17 and 22 to 24, which are profitably quoted hereunder:-<UL>“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.15. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.15. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states:“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 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 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.”(emphasis supplied)16. The accident in which Smt. Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion, the present case is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso.17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. 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.22. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendant's activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 247). There are many activities which are so hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of another. The principle of strict liability states that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. As Fleming says “permission to conduct such activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes, as an appropriate item of its overheads” (see Fleming on Torts, 6th Edn., p. 302).23. Thus, in cases where the principle of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault.24. The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is twofold: (i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the risk of damage that their activities generate, and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity (usually a corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 267).</UL>13. This case is squarely covered by the above judgment.14. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the occurrence is of dated 13.06.2003, the claim application was filed before the learned Tribunal on 12.08.2003, which was decided on 28.08.2012. This case is squarely covered by the above judgment.14. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the occurrence is of dated 13.06.2003, the claim application was filed before the learned Tribunal on 12.08.2003, which was decided on 28.08.2012. Thereafter the appeal has been preferred before this Court with a delay for which application for condonation of delay has also been filed in the year, 2014 and thereafter the appeal remains pending though the counter-affidavit has been filed by the Railway, as such, appellant may be given interest on the compensation amount in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of the judgment of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others vs. Union of Indian and another, reported in <a href='00100047409'>2009 (7) SCC 372</a> at para 38, which is profitably quoted hereunder:-<UL>“38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims.”</UL>15. Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha has submitted that finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is justified and on the basis of the material brought on record. The delay has also not been properly explained, as such, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.16. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the judgment relied upon by the parties including the evidence brought on record of A.W.2 (Munna Yadav) who is an eye-witness to the occurrence. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the judgment relied upon by the parties including the evidence brought on record of A.W.2 (Munna Yadav) who is an eye-witness to the occurrence. No incriminating material has been brought on record by the Railways to disbelieve the case of the claimant and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) at Para 29 deceased is considered to be a bona-fide passenger and in view of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) at Paras 14 to 17 and 22 to 24, this Court considers it to be a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act as nothing has been brought on record to substantiate that the deceased has committed suicide or caused self inflicted injury rather in view of the above judgment, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal.17. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No.TAU/RNC/2003/0053 is hereby set aside.18. So far interest is concerned, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred above, claimant is entitled to the interest on compensation amount.19. Accordingly the instant appeal is hereby allowed.20. The respondent-railways is directed to pay compensation within a reasonable time as per the prevalent rate at the time of filing of the claim application which was a sum of Rs.4 Lac along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till the date of judgment or Rs.8 Lacs in view of the new amended rule 2016 made effective from 01.01.2017, whichever is higher in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, reported in <a href='00100063253'>2019 (3) SCC 410</a> in para 11 which is profitably quoted hereunder:-<UL>“11. This issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi (supra) is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. This issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi (supra) is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability has arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.”</UL>21. However, such amount shall be paid to the dependents of the deceased after taking affidavit that this amount is on behalf of all the dependents and to that effect affidavit shall be filed by the dependents of the deceased.<hr color=rgb(84,0,168)></body></html>

Boudhi Singh, S/o. Late Bidya Singh v. Union of India