JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A. No. 8679 of 2022 The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 151 days in filing the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In view of reason assigned in the application, the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8679 of 2022 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 238 of 2020 5. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4543 of 2014 whereby and whereunder while allowing the writ petition the railway authority has been directed to pay the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the petitioner (father of the deceased son) if it is less than to the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, interest in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 6. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which is required to be enumerated reads as under: The son of the writ petitioner, namely, Prabhat Kujur, was a student of Class 10 of Gossener High School, Ranchi. On 25.08.2003, he was going to school on a bicycle on Namkom-Chutia Road which is a common road for the local residents and this road passes through Railway Crossing at Ketari Bagan, Chutia. He, while going to school, was crossing the Ketari Bagan unmanned Railway Crossing at Chutia, when Patna Hatia Express Train coming towards Ranchi Station in high speed without appropriate signals ran over him resulting in his death on the spot. After that incident, the local people demonstrated at the site and demanded for construction of a gate at the site of crossing. This matter was also reported in daily newspaper on 26.08.2003 and U.D. Case No. 18/03 was registered by the G.R.P. Ranchi Railway Station Thana on the basis of written statement of the mother of the deceased, namely Smt. Muktisalen Kujur on 25.08.2003. The matter was investigated by the Railway Police and inquest report was prepared and final report was submitted which also supports the case of the writ petitioner. The matter was investigated by the Railway Police and inquest report was prepared and final report was submitted which also supports the case of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed representation before the Divisional Railway Manager, Hatia for compensation but no response has been given by the authority. When no response from the concerned authority was received, a compensation case being Compensation Case No.64 of 2004 was filed before Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi but the same was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act which was also rejected on 24.06.2014 by the Railway Claims Tribunal at Ranchi on the ground that it is not in terms of section 124 of the Railways Act read with Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has approached this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4543 of 2014 by taking the ground of negligence committed on the part of the Railway Authority in not complying with the requirements of putting gates, chain bars etc. as provided under the provision of Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989. The learned Single Judge, after calling upon the respondent railway authority, has passed the order directing to pay the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the writ petitioner i.e. father of the deceased, if it is less than to the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- interest in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 7. Mrs. 7. Mrs. Alpana Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/appellant has filed the instant appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has committed error in allowing the writ petition by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra), since, the same pertains to the accident occurred to the railway passenger and hence the case herein is crossing of unmanned railway crossing and, as such, the aforesaid judgment ought not to have been relied for the purpose of disposal of this case and on this ground the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from error. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed the order by considering the negligence on the part of the railway by taking into consideration the non-compliance of the requirement as stipulated under Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989 and even accepting that there is negligence on the part of the railway in not providing the adequate measures to be taken in view of the provision of Section 18 then also, if any casualty will occur the sufferer will not be entitled for the compensation. But, without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact the learned Single Judge has passed the order, therefore, on this ground also the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Per-contra, Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner has submitted that admittedly the son of the writ petitioner had succumbed to injury due to accident while crossing the unmanned railway crossing which was having no gates, barrier and the railway staff as required to be there in view of the provision of Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989. The writ-petitioner although has approached the Railway Tribunal for the purpose of compensation but the same has been rejected on the ground that due to non-compliance of the provision of Section 18 there cannot be any compensation and hence the Tribunal has refused to exercise its jurisdiction, since, the Tribunal has been conferred with the power to award the compensation on due assessment if any casualty occurred to the passengers travelling in the train. The writ petitioner, having no remedy available, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that the death of the son of the writ petitioner is there while crossing the unmanned railway crossing and the statutory obligation as casted upon the railway authority in view of provision of section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989 since has not complied with which ultimately led to the death of the son of the writ petitioner and hence the same has been considered to be negligence on the part of the Railway and in that view of the matter the compensation has been directed to be paid. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (Supra) will not be applicable, the submission has been made that the learned Single Judge only for the purpose of the failure/negligence on the part of the railway has considered the ratio of the said judgment so as to do the substantial justice. The learned counsel, in the aforesaid background, has submitted that keeping the fact aforesaid into consideration, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the document available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. The ground has been agitated on behalf of the appellant while assailing the impugned order that the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (Supra) ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge and hence on this ground the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. 11. In order to appreciate the aforesaid argument and to consider the argument advanced in this regard on behalf of the writ-petitioner and for the purpose of doing substantial justice, since the learned Single Judge has considered the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (Supra,) we have gone through the aforesaid judgment and found therefrom that the said case pertains to death of not a train passenger but the person who was wandering near the railway track and hence the cousin of the deceased has lodged the FIR and finally the matter travelled to the Tribunal for the purpose of compensation, but the Tribunal has dismissed the claim on the ground that it was not a case of untoward incident but a case of run over and as such the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The aforesaid order was challenged before the High Court and was set aside by the High court and finally the matter went to the Hon'ble Apex Court whereby the ratio has been laid down in the said case. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the various provisions of the Railway Act, 1989 as also has considered the principle of strict liability -concept of self-inflicted injury and has been pleased to hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The 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. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid judgment that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the applicability of principle of strict liability – concept of self-inflicted injury as would appear from paragraph 20 to 25 thereof and has been pleased to hold that the concept of self-inflicted injury would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. The Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, has considered the principle of strict liability and also the burden of proof. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, has considered the principle of strict liability and also the burden of proof. 12. This Court after considering the fact of the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (Supra) has found there from that the question of strict liability and burden of proof was the paramount consideration and when the question of strict liability will come then the liability as casted under the statutory command is to be followed by the authority against whom the liability has been casted. Herein it would be evident from Section 18 of the Railway Act, 1989 that certain duty/liability has been casted upon the railway authority regarding fencing, construction of suitable gates, chains, bars, stiles or hand-rails be erected or renewed by a railway administration at the level crossings, for the ready reference, Section 18 of the Railway Act, 1989 is being quoted hereunder as: “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 or 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.” The construction of suitable gates, chains, bars, stiles or hand-rails be erected or renewed by a railway administration at level crossings as stipulated under Section 18 (b) of the Railway Act, 1989 thus suggests that the railway administration has mandatorily been casted with the duty to make construction of suitable gates, chains, bars, stiles or hand-rails for the purpose of providing security measures. Admittedly herein there is no compliance of the Section 18, more particularly Sub-section (b) thereof and, hence, in that view of the matter, any casualty takes place within the area which is under the control of the railway administration where the appropriate measures have not been taken as per the stipulation made under Section 18 (b) of the Act then it will be the liability of the railway administration to take care of either in the terms of money or by any measures. Admittedly the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) is based upon the fact of suffering of a passenger but does not mean that if any casualty takes place of a person who is crossing the railway bridge and when there is no statutory compliance as per the provision under section 18 (b) which is to be done by the railway administration then the railway administration will be allowed to skip from its liability. 13. At this juncture it will be relevant to discuss the applicability of strict liability. The theory of strict liability can be said to have originated from the judgment of Blackburn, J. of the British High Court in Rylands v. Fletcher 1866 LRI Ex 265. The principle of strict liability (also called no fault liability) was evolved gradually, which was an exception to the general principle in the law of torts that there is no liability without fault. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendant’s activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on. 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. The fault principle which was prevailing earlier has shortcomings and implies that wrongdoer should only be answerable to the extent of his fault. This is unjust when a wholly innocent victim sustains catastrophic harm through some trivial fault, and is left virtually without compensation. In India the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 has gone much further than Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) in imposing strict liability. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court while rendering the Judgment in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. reported in 2008 9 SCC 527 has put reliance on M.C. Mehta (supra) and has categorically held that principle of strict liability will also apply to statutory authorities (like the railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit and merely that the public bodies benefit the community, it is unfair to leave the result of a non-negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that we can and should develop the law of strict liability de hors statutory provisions and we have to develop new principles for fixing liability because it is duty of the state to function as a Welfare State, and look after the welfare of all its citizens. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs are being quoted hereunder as: “39. The decision in M.C. Mehtas case (supra) related to a concern working for private profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit. 40. It is true that attempts to apply the principle of Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) against public bodies have not on the whole succeeded vide Administrative Law by P.P. Craig, 2nd Edn. p. 446, mainly because of the idea that a body which acts not for its own profit but for the benefit of the community should not be liable. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is because such public bodies benefit the community that it is unfair to leave the result of a non-negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally. 43. In India, Article 38(1) of the Constitution states "the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life". Thus, it is the duty of the State under our Constitution to function as a Welfare State, and look after the welfare of all its citizens. 47. However, apart from the principle of strict liability in Section 124A of the Railways Act and other statutes, we can and should develop the law of strict liability de hors statutory provisions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in M.C. Mehtas case (supra). In our opinion, we have to develop new principles for fixing liability in cases like the present one. In our opinion, we have to develop new principles for fixing liability in cases like the present one. Thus, from aforesaid observation it can safely be inferred that 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. The learned Single Judge, thus, if has relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra), although the factual aspect is different to this, but for the purpose of consideration of the principle of strict liability as one of the issues in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra,) this Court, considered its application to be proper. Accordingly, the argument advanced in this regard that the judgment of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) is not applicable, as per discussion made hereinabove, is hereby rejected. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court rendered in the case of Laxmi Priya Sahoo and another vs. Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway, Khurda and another as reported in 2012 (1) OLR 468 wherein the case of a death while crossing the railway bridge was the subject matter. It is settled position of law that the order passed by the different High Courts is not having binding precedence but the same has got persuasive value and if any judgment is being relied upon rendered by the other High Courts and in case the same is not being relied upon, reason is to be assigned therein as to why even though persuasive value is there but why it is not being followed, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Pradip J. Mehta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad [ (2008) 14 SCC 283 ], wherein at paragraph 23, it has been held which reads as under :- “23. Although, the judgments referred to above were cited at the Bar in the High Court, which were taken note of by the learned Judges of the Bench of the High Court, but without either recording its agreement or dissent, it answered the two questions referred to it in favour of the Revenue. Although, the judgments referred to above were cited at the Bar in the High Court, which were taken note of by the learned Judges of the Bench of the High Court, but without either recording its agreement or dissent, it answered the two questions referred to it in favour of the Revenue. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that the High Court should, especially in the event of its contra view or dissent, have discussed the aforesaid judgments of the different High Courts and recorded its own reasons for its contra view. We quite see the fact that the judgments given by a High Court are not binding on the other High Court(s), but all the same, they have persuasive value. Another High Court would be within its right to differ with the view taken by the other High Courts but, in all fairness, the High Court should record its dissent with reasons therefor. The judgment of the other High Courts, though not binding, have persuasive value which should be taken note of and dissented from by recording its own reasons.” 15. This Court on consideration of the aforesaid position of law, for the purpose of the acceptance of the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court by way of persuasive value is now proceeding to examine the factual aspect and after going through the same it is evident that the case pertains to the occurrence of death while crossing the unmanned railway bridge. The Orissa High Court after taking into consideration the provision of section 124 of the Railway Act read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 and by taking into consideration the judgment passed by the different High Courts as also by considering the observation made in “Lord Blackburn In Livingstone vs. Rawyards Coal Co.,” (1880) 5 App Case 25, has observed thus: “22. In the above case, Their Lordships of the House of Lords, observed that the bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles plaintiff to the damage and that the amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury. In the above case, Their Lordships of the House of Lords, observed that the bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles plaintiff to the damage and that the amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury. Their Lordships emphasized that in personal injury cases the Court should not award merely token damages but they should grant substantial amount which could be regarded as adequate compensation.” The Orissa High Court has further considered the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “R.D. Hattangaddi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in AIR (1995) SC 775 wherein at para-10 of the judgment, it has been held herein under as: "10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant That is why it has been said by Courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury 'so far as money can compensate' because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." The Orissa High Court on the basis of the discussions so made has held the claimant petitioner entitled for compensation, for ready reference para-36 is required to be referred which reads hereunder as: “36. In view of the above, the claimant-petitioners in both the cases are entitled to compensation. Hence non-grant of the compensation to the claimant-petitioners by the Railway Administration is not sustainable in law. Hence, we answer the point No.3 in affirmative by awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakh (rupees four lakh) to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3324 of 2010 whose child died in the said railway accident and Rs.65,000/- (rupees sixty five thousand) to the injured claimant in W.P.(C) No.3325 of 2010. The petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the claim made before the opposite parties till realization. The petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the claim made before the opposite parties till realization. The same shall be computed and disbursed to the claimant-petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.” 16. This Court, after going through the factual aspect as involved in the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court and coming back to the factual aspect involved in this case, is of the considered view that there is no reason to not consider the aforesaid judgment having its persuasive value which is due to the reason that the question of the negligence committed on the part of the railway authority, the strict liability, the judgment has been rendered holding the claimant entitled for compensation. 17. This Court after having discussed factual aspect along with aforesaid legal position and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that if the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the death of the son of the writ petitioner while crossing the unmanned railway bridge which has been considered to be the negligence on the part of the Railways and in that circumstances, if the writ petition has been allowed, the same, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 18. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 19. Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed of.