Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 545 (BOM)

Kamal v. Union of India

2024-04-15

G.A.SANAP

body2024
JUDGMENT : G.A. Sanap, J. In this appeal, filed under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1987" for short), challenge is to the judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the claim filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 16 of the Act of 1987 for compensation was dismissed. 2. Background Facts:- Deceased Tulshidas was the husband of the appellant. On 29.11.2003, after purchasing a journey ticket, he boarded Gondia-Ballarshah train at Brahmapuri Railway Station for Sindewahi. It is stated that due to sudden jerk, he fell from moving train. He sustained injuries and died due to the injuries sustained by him. It is stated that he was a bona fide passenger. The death was in an untoward incident. 3. The Respondent-Railway filed written statement and opposed the claim. It was contended that the death was not in an untoward incident. According to the Respondent, the deceased tried to board a moving train at Brahmapuri Railway Station and in the process his hand slipped from the handle of the door of the compartment and he fell down. The incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. 4. Before the Tribunal, the parties adduced evidence. The appellant has examined herself as AW1. She has also examined one independent witness, who was an eye-witness to the incident. She has relied upon documentary evidence. The respondent-Railway has examined one witness. Learned Members of the Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the death was not in an untoward incident and therefore dismissed the claim. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant is before this Court in appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Atul Mahajan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. N. G. Choubey, learned advocate for the Respondent. Perused the record and proceedings. 6. In the facts and circumstances, following points fall for determination :- 1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling by the train in question with a valid journey ticket ? 2. Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident as understood by section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 ? 7. Mr. Atul Mahajan, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket. 2. Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident as understood by section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 ? 7. Mr. Atul Mahajan, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket. Learned advocate submitted that the Tribunal, without considering the evidence on record and the provisions of law, has recorded a finding that the death was not in an untoward incident. Learned advocate submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while boarding a moving train and as such, it would not be an untoward incident, cannot be sustained. Learned advocate submitted that even death while boarding a moving train is covered within the definition of an "untoward incident". In order to seek support to his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported at AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 383. 8. Ms. N.G. Choube, learned Advocate for the respondent-Railway, in short, supported the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence adduced by the appellant as to the actual occurrence of the incident is self-contradictory and therefore, reliance cannot be placed on such evidence. Learned advocate submitted that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim. 9. It is the case of the appellant that the deceased, after purchasing a valid journey ticket, boarded the train in question. It is stated that due to sudden jerk to the train, he fell from the moving train and died due to the injuries sustained by him. As against this, it is the case of the respondent- Railway that the deceased tried to board a moving train and in the process his hand slipped from the handle of the door of the compartment and he fell down. In my view, even if the case of the Railway is accepted as it is, the same would not stand in the way of the appellant to get compensation. In this context, it would be appropriate to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakaran's case (supra). In my view, even if the case of the Railway is accepted as it is, the same would not stand in the way of the appellant to get compensation. In this context, it would be appropriate to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakaran's case (supra). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are in paragraphs 9 to 12. The same are extracted below : "9. In appeal, the Kerala High Court was of the view that the deceased sustained injuries, even according to the respondents, in her anxiety to get into the train which was moving. Hence, the High Court held that the deceased came within the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' which is an 'untoward incident', as defined in section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. 10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'. Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined in section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 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 (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9), B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12), Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc. 12. 12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647 (para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12) etc." 10. The facts of Prabhakaran's case (supra) and the facts of the case on hand are similar. In Prabhakaran's case (supra), the deceased attempted to board the moving train. In the process, she fell down and died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The question was whether it would be an untoward incident. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the death or injury would come within the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" which is an "untoward incident", as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989"). The Apex Court has observed that it will not make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell or she tried to get into the train when she fell. It is held that in either case, it amounts to accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since this legislation being a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive liberal and wider interpretation. In my view, on this point, the case of the appellant would be fully covered by the decision in Prabhakaran's case (supra). 11. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the act of the deceased could not be said to be intentional and as such the injuries sustained by him could not be said to be self-inflicted injuries. Learned advocate submitted that the defence of negligence or contributory negligence will not be available to the respondent-Railway inasmuch as the liability is based on the principle of "no fault theory". Learned advocate submitted that the defence of negligence or contributory negligence will not be available to the respondent-Railway inasmuch as the liability is based on the principle of "no fault theory". Learned advocate submitted that the case on hand will not fall within any of the clauses under the Proviso to Section 124-A. Learned advocate submitted that in the factual situation, on the basis of the plea of contributory negligence of the deceased, the claim could not have been rejected. In order to seek support to this submission, learned advocate has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, reported at AIR 2018 SC 2362 . 12. The question of negligence or contributory negligence of a passenger has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rina Devi (supra). Paragraph 16.6 of the decision would be relevant for addressing this issue. It is extracted below :- "16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of 'self inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar ( 2017 (13) Scale 652 ) laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault theory' under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor." 13. In Rina Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the principle of contributory negligence cannot be invoked in case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. It is held that the liability to pay compensation under the Act of 1989 is based on 'no fault theory'. In Rina Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the principle of contributory negligence cannot be invoked in case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. It is held that the liability to pay compensation under the Act of 1989 is based on 'no fault theory'. It is held that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding train will be an untoward incident entitling the victim to compensation and will not fall under the Proviso to Section 124A, merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. In my view, the law laid down in Rina Devi (supra), supports the contention of the appellant/claimant. 14. In my view, the facts and evidence, if considered in the backdrop of the law laid down as above, would clearly show that the death of the deceased was in an untoward incident. The deceased was a bona fide passenger. He died due to the injuries sustained in the incident. In view of the law laid down above, accidental falling of a passenger from a moving train in this manner and his death in such an incident would be covered by the definition of an untoward incident. In such case, wider interpretation has to be accorded to the provisions of the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation. In my view, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim. As such, I record my finding on point nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative. As a result of this, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 15. In this case, the accident occurred on 29.11.2003. Learned advocate for the appellants/claimants submitted that after issuance of Notification dated 22.12.2016, issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), the compensation payable under the various entries of the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, has been revised with effect from 01.01.2017. In view of the amendment of the Schedule, in case of a death claim, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only). In view of the amendment of the Schedule, in case of a death claim, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only). However, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Radha Yadav, reported at (2019) 3 SCC 410 , in case of old claim, after this notification, the claimants/appellants would be entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, without interest, if the compensation provided earlier with interest is less than Rs.8,00,000/-. Learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the compensation provided earlier i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- with interest would not be more than Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in this case, the appellant/ claimant would be entitled to get Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), without interest. 16. Accordingly, the First Appeal is allowed. i] The judgment and order dated 30.09.2004, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Claim Application No. 06/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2004, is set aside. The claim petition is allowed. ii] Respondent - South Eastern Central Railway is directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) towards compensation to the appellant within four months from the date of uploading of this judgment. iii] The amount be deposited directly in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant shall provide her bank account details to the respondent-Railway. iv] The appellant will not be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation to be paid by the respondent. However, the appellant would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this judgment till realization of the amount, if the amount is not deposited within four months. v] The First Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly.