JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Pratap Swain, who died in a train accident caused on 12.09.2014 in an un-manned level crossing No. 167A at Railway location KM-380/19-21 between BYY-BRTG near village Kapastikira in the district of Cuttack They are, by way of present writ petition, seeking direction to grant compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs), along with interest, due to' negligence on the part of railway authority, from the date of death of deceased till the date of payment. 2. The fact of the case, in a nut shell, is that petitioner No. 1's husband, who was aged about 39 years at the relevant point of time, was working in a garage as a manager and was getting Rs. 10,000/- towards salary per month. On him, petitioner No. 1-wife, petitioners No. 2 and 3, the two minor children, and petitioner No. 4, the widow mother were dependant. On 12.09.2014 at about 9.20 A.M., the Dn East Coast Express No. 18646, which was crossing the unmanned level crossing situated at village Kapastikira, dashed against the motorcyclist, who was crossing the said level crossing at that time Consequentially, the husband of petitioner No. 1, namely, Pratap Swain died. Thereafter, on the basis of FIR lodged by the Senior Section Engineer-Jayanta Kumar Sahoo, East Coast Railway, Dhanmandal, Cuttack GRPS Case No. 109 of 2014 was registered under Sections 279/304 (A) IPC. The fact of death of the deceased due to unmanned level crossing is not in dispute Thereby, due to death of said Pratap Swain, petitioner No. 1 while lost her husband, petitioners No. 2 and 3 lost their father and petitioner No. 4 lost her son. 2.1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs), as the railway authorities have not taken reasonable precaution to reduce the damage to the public where a railway line crosses high way path, and as such, the death occurred in an unmanned level crossing. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, as claimed in the writ petition. Hence, this application. 3. Miss. M. Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, as claimed in the writ petition. Hence, this application. 3. Miss. M. Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the deceased died in a train accident in an unmanned level crossing, on account of the Railways Act, 1989 read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which fixes the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in case of no fault liability, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation. She has relied upon the judgment of this High Court in Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, 2013 (1) OLR 674 . 4. Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for contesting opposite party No. 1, referring to counter affidavit, contended that as per latest Railway Board Guideline, level crossings are made basing on TVU (Train Vehicle Unit) and the level crossing less than the required TVU with clear visibility from the both sides cannot be declared as manned level crossing. The Railway administration has taken every care to give sufficient indications at the unmanned level crossings. The deceased did not care for the instructions and for his negligence; the deceased, who was moving in a motorcycle bearing registration No. OD-05B-1898, was run over by Train No. 18646 East Coast Express (Dn) between BYY-Bairi Thengada in the village Kapastitikiri at Km 380/19-21. It is further contended that necessary steps have also been taken to provide a manned level crossing, but the same has not been materialized. As such, it is contended that in view of Section 124 of the Railway Act, 1989 no compensation shall be payable. It is further contended that unmanned level crossing gates are protected areas and one has to cross the same with proper care and caution as per law. The Railway administration have taken sufficient protection by keeping sign boards like "Speed Breaker Board, Whistle Board etc" on both sides of an unmanned level crossing. The death of the deceased was caused due to encroaching upon the protected area without taking sufficient care and precaution, while crossing an unmanned level crossing gate. In spite of all the safety measures taken, if the death has been occurred due to carelessness of the pedestrians/road users, in that case, the railway authorities are not liable to pay any compensation, as claimed in the writ petition. 5. In spite of all the safety measures taken, if the death has been occurred due to carelessness of the pedestrians/road users, in that case, the railway authorities are not liable to pay any compensation, as claimed in the writ petition. 5. This Court heard Miss M. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 6. On the basis of the factual matrix discussed above and after considering rival legal contentions raised at the Bar, the following questions fall for consideration by this Court:- (1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable in law? (2) Whether the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the railway administration by not providing sufficient protection at the level crossing in deploying guard or putting check gate as required under section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989? (3) Whether on account of not providing safeguard to the level crossing by the railway administration, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as claimed? 7. To answer the above questions, this Court examined the facts and rival legal contentions as made before this Court in the present case. For just and proper adjudication of the case, relevant provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 are referred hereunder. "18. Fences, gates and bars.-The Central Government may, within such time as may be specified by it or within such further time, as it may grant, require that- (a) boundary marks or fences be provided or renewed by a railway-administration for a railway on any part thereof and for roads constructed in connection therewith; (b) suitable gates, chains, bars, stiles or hand-rails be erected or renewed by a railway administration at level crossings; (c) persons be employed by a railway administration to open and shut gates, chains or bars. 113. 113. Notice of railway accident- (1) Where, in the course of working a railway,- (a) any accident attended with loss of any human life, or with grievous hurt, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, or with such serious injury to property as may be prescribed, or (b) any collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers; or (c) the derailment of any train carrying passengers, or of any part of such train; or (d) any accident of a description usually attended with loss of human life or with such grievous hurt as aforesaid or with serious injury to property; or (e) any accident or any other description which the Central Government may notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette. Occurs, the station master of the station nearest to the place at which the accident occurs or where there is no station master, the railway servant in charge of the section of the railway on which the accident occurs, shall, without, delay, give notice of the accident to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, within whose jurisdiction the accident occurs, the officer in charge of the police station within the local limits of which the accident occurs and to such other Magistrate or police officer as may be appointed in this behalf by the Central Government. (2) The railway administration within whose jurisdiction the accident' occurs, as also the railway administration to whom the train involved in the accident belongs shall without delay, give notice of the accident to the State Government and the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the place of the accident. 114. Inquiry by Commissioner.- (1) On the receipt of a notice under section 113 of the occurrence of an accident to a train carrying passengers resulting in loss of human life or grievous hurt causing total or partial disablement of permanent nature to a passenger or serious damage to railway property, the Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, notify the railway administration in whose jurisdiction the accident occurred of his intention to hold an inquiry into the causes that led to the accident and shall at the same time fix and communicate the date, time and place of inquiry. Provided that it shall be open to the Commissioner to hold an inquiry into any other accident which, in his opinion, requires the holding of such an inquiry. Provided that it shall be open to the Commissioner to hold an inquiry into any other accident which, in his opinion, requires the holding of such an inquiry. (2) If for any reason, the Commissioner is not able to hold an inquiry as soon as may be after the occurrence of the accident, he shall notify the railway administration accordingly. 115. Inquiry by railway administration.-Whether no inquiry is held by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 114 or where the Commissioner has informed the railway administration under sub-section (2) of that section that he is not able to hold an inquiry, the railway administration within whose jurisdiction the accident occurs, shall cause an inquiry to be made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 124. Extent of liability.-When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, 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 has suffered a loss 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 a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. 147. 147. Trespass and refusal to desist from trespass.-(1) If any person enters upon or into any part of railway without lawful authority, or having lawfully entered upon or into such part misuses such property or refuses to leave, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such punishment shall not be less than a fine of five hundred rupees; (2) Any person referred to in sub-section (I) may be removed from the railway by any railway servant or by any other person whom such railway servant may call to his aid. Rule 4 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 states as follows: "4. Limit of compensation-Notwithstanding anything contained in the rule 3, the total compensation payable under that rule shall in no case exceed (rupees four lakhs) in respect of any one person." 8. In view of statutory provisions, more particularly, Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989, the railway administration has the statutory obligation to provide sufficient safeguards to the level crossing by putting railway check gate and keeping it closed at the time when train is due to pass at the level crossing area. In the case in hand, the railway administration had not taken any precautionary measure either by putting a railway check gate or keeping it closed at the time when the train was due to pass, or put up some other obstruction, which could prevent the public from passing over the level crossing giving them information and notice of the approaching train, and the accident of the kind that had happened in this case could have been avoided. After receiving notice under Section 113 from the petitioners, as per the Railways Act, 1989, an inquiry must have been conducted by the railway authorities under Sections 114 and 115 of the Act. If such report would have been produced, then it could have disclosed whether there is negligence on the part of the railway administration on account of which the accident took place resulting in death of the deceased. If such report would have been produced, then it could have disclosed whether there is negligence on the part of the railway administration on account of which the accident took place resulting in death of the deceased. Therefore, the said inquiry report, as required under Section 115 of the Act, having not been produced, this Court draws an adverse inference against the Railways that there was negligence on the part of the railway administration in not taking sufficient precautionary measures by posting guard or keeping the railway gate closed at the time while the train was due to pass through that level crossing. Noncompliance of the aforesaid statutory obligations by the railway administration, this Court rejects the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Railways that there are serious disputed questions of facts and due to carelessness on the part of the deceased, the claim made in the writ petition cannot sustain. Further, in view of provisions contained under Article 21 of the Constitution, "Right to Life" is a fundamental right as enshrined in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India. "Right to Life" does not mean an animal existence, it requires a meaningful life to be led by citizen of India. 9. In M.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), the apex Court held as follows: "(3) Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The Motor Accidents Claims-Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by the transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbor. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practiced by Tribunals. We must remember that judicial Tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in the disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of Tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard." 10. In Swarnalata Barua v. Union of India, 1958-65 ACJ 365 (Assam), the High Court of Assam held that there is an obligation on the part of the railway administration to ensure that whenever a railway passes over a thoroughfare adequate warning should be given to the public about passing of the train at the time they pass so that accidents may be avoided. This duty need not necessarily be a statutory duty. It is implied and inherent in the functions to be discharged by the railway administration in the matter of running their railways. It is not disputed that had the railway administration taken the precaution of either putting up of a railway gate and keeping it closed at the time the train was due to pass or put up some other obstruction which could prevent the public from passing over the level crossing giving them information and notice of the approaching train, the accident of the kind that happened in this case could not have happened. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, question No. 2 is also answered in favour of the petitioners as the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of railway administration in not providing sufficient protection at the level crossing and without deploying guards or putting the check gate closed at the time while the train was due to pass through that level crossing as required under Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989. 12. Question Nos. 1 and 2 having been answered in favour of the petitioners, now remains question No. 3 to be considered. Under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, no fault liability of the passenger who expires in a railway accident has been fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/-. In the instant case, the victim lost his life in the said accident due to negligence on the part of the railway administration in putting gates at the level crossing or public are allowed to cross the railway line without providing precautionary measures, as indicated above. Further, the apex Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086 , observed that in appropriate cases, the court discharging constitutional duties can pass orders for payment of money in the nature of compensation. Consequent upon deprivation of the fundamental right to life and liberty of a petitioner the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's right. Further, in Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988 ACJ 780 (HP) and in Seemu v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, 1994 ACJ 623 (HP), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh ruled that writ court can grant relief to the petitioners claiming damages for the injuries arising out of negligence of the State authorities like Electricity Board. In Kumari v. State of Tamilnadu, 1992 ACJ 283 (SC), the apex Court overruling the decision of the High Court of Tamil Nadu observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked for awarding compensation to a victim, who suffered due to negligence of the State or its functionaries. In Kumari v. State of Tamilnadu, 1992 ACJ 283 (SC), the apex Court overruling the decision of the High Court of Tamil Nadu observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked for awarding compensation to a victim, who suffered due to negligence of the State or its functionaries. The same principle has been reiterated in various judgments of the different High Courts including this High Court and also the apex Court observed that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court can issue a direction for payment of compensation if there is deliberate act of negligence on the part of the railway administration. 13. Applying the above principles to the present case, it can safely be said that the death has been caused to the deceased due to unmanned level crossing and due to negligence on the part of railway administration. Under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, no fault liability of the passenger who expires in a railway accident has been fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/-. 14. In Prabir Kumar Das (supra), this Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the persons who had lost their life with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in the accident. So far as quantum of damages is concerned, the apex Court in the case of M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151 , held that the placement in the society or the financial status of the victim can be good guide for determining the quantum of compensation. Under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, no fault liability of the passenger who died in a railway accident has been fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/-. A claim for damages for negligence of the opposite parties falls in the arena of a civil wrong called a tort action. In relation to claims for railway accidents, the Railways Act provides for fixed compensation on predetermined scales. It also provides a forum for passengers to make claims in the form of Railway Claims Tribunals situated in different parts of India. But there is a limitation. Only a passenger on a train can make a claim before the Tribunal. In relation to claims for railway accidents, the Railways Act provides for fixed compensation on predetermined scales. It also provides a forum for passengers to make claims in the form of Railway Claims Tribunals situated in different parts of India. But there is a limitation. Only a passenger on a train can make a claim before the Tribunal. Passengers of a bus or motor vehicle who may have been harmed after collision with a train can only approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. However, the tribunal can entertain the claim against the Railways also as a joint tortfeasor if the negligence of the Railways is established. Therefore, it can be held that the duty of care for the Railways extends not only to those who use the Railways' services but also to people who are "neighbours", namely, users of vehicles on roads and passer-by that intersect with tracks. Consequentially, there is a common law liability for the railway administration for an accident at an unmanned level crossing, even in the absence of specific provisions in the Railways Act, 1989 where the Central Government can direct the administration to lay manned crossings. An action at common law can be filed for nonfeasance because the Railway was involved in what are recognized as dangerous operations and hence is bound to take care of road users. Therefore, it took up the issue of whether there could be any breach or a common law duty on the part of the Railways if it does not take notice of the increase in the volume of rail and motor traffic at the unmanned crossing, and it does not take adequate steps such as putting up gates with a watchman to prevent accidents at such a point. As such, the Railways should take all precautions that will reduce danger to the minimum. Similar question has also been considered by this Court in Pranabandhu Pradhan v. Union of India, 2019 (II) ILR-CUT-770 : 2019 (Supp. II) OLR (NOC) 96 wherein this Court passed an order awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakhs) in similar circumstances. 15. In view of such position, taking into consideration' the facts of the present case with that of, referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that negligence has been caused by the Railway authority in providing proper safeguard in unmanned level crossing. 4,00,000/- (four lakhs) in similar circumstances. 15. In view of such position, taking into consideration' the facts of the present case with that of, referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that negligence has been caused by the Railway authority in providing proper safeguard in unmanned level crossing. Therefore, it would be just and proper if a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs) in lump sum is paid to the petitioners towards death caused to the deceased in a railway accident. The opposite parties are directed to pay the above compensation amount within a period of four months from the date of communication of this judgment, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident, i.e., 12.09.2014 till actual payment is made 16. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.