Union Of India Thro. The General ... vs Narendra Kumar Gupta S/O Sri Radha ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5863 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Reserved
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 692 of 2011
 

 
Appellant :- Union Of India Thro. The General Manager Northern Railway
 
Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Gupta S/O Sri Radha Krishna Gupta & Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Shekhar Sinha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Present appeal has been filed by Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and award dated 4.5.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench , Lucknow in Case No. OA 0400416 awarding Rs. 4 Lacs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 26.5.2004 from the date when the delay in filing the appeal was condoned till the date of award, thereafter interest @ 9% till the date of actual payment as compensation for the death of Radha Krishna Gupta, the father of the respondent no.1.

Facts, in brief , of the facts are that one Sri Radha Krishna Gupta (deceased), after purchasing a valid ticket, was traveling from Rai-bareilly to Dehradun by train No. 4265 UP Janta Express in class II on 28.5.2000. Incidentally, he fell down due to jerk from upper birth and sustained head injury and died.

In view of the said factual background a case for compensation ( Case No. OA 0400416 ) under Section 16 read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming the compensation of Rs. 4 lacs for the death of late Radha Krishan Gupta has been filed alongwith condonation of delay.

By order dated 26.5.2004, delay was condoned . And after exchange of pleadings/evidence etc, the Railway Claims Tribunal in order to decide the controversy involved in the matter has framed the following issues:-

1.Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question?

2.Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

3.Who are the dependents of the deceased ?

4.To what relief?

On the basis of material evidence on record the Claims Tribunal had decided the cae in favour of the claimants holding that the deceased was bonafide passenger while he was tavelling on 28.5.2000 by of the train by train No. 4265 UP Janta Express when the accident has taken place due to which he has fell down from upper birth of the train sustained injury and died .So the said incident falls within the ambit and scope of "untoward incident" as denie under Section 123(c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Act and taking into consideration the law as laid down by Andra Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M. Siva Parvati and others, AIR 2008 Andra Pradesh High Court, 145 and by High Court of Bombay in the case of Sahadeo Sindhu Sanas and another Vs. Union of India, AIR 2010 Bombay 67 the claim petition ( Case No. No. OA 0400416 ) allowed the same by means of judgment and award dated 4.5.2011), the operative part is quoted as under:-

" The claim application filed by the applicant is allowed awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-( Rupees four lakhs only) alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date i.e. 26.5.2004, when the delay was condoned, till the date of the award and thereafter @9% per annum till the date of actual payment of the same."

Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the impugned award submits that as the deceased had fallen down due to jerk from upper birth in train no. 4265 Up Janta Express on 28.5.2000 due to his own negligence and died so due to the said fact/ reason does not comes under the definition of ' untoward incident' as given in the Act so the respondents are exempted from any liability under the exception clauses as given under Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989, the impugned award liable to be set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record.

In order to decide the controversy which involved in the present case as stated herein above , the point which is to be decided in the present appeal whether the deceased Radha Krishan Gupta was bondafide passenger traveling in class II from Raibareli to Dehradun by train no. 4265 Up Janta Express who fell down from upper berth sustained injury and died the incident falls under the ambit and scope of an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) (2) read with Section 124-A of Act.

Chapter III of the Tribunal Act deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal. Section 13 of the Tribunal Acts reads as follows:

"13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.-(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,-

(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-

(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;

(ii) compensation payable under Section of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and

(b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.

(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under Section 124-A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder.

(2) The provisions of the Railways Act 1989 (24 of 1989) and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act."

Chapter XIII of the Act contains provisions ( Section 123 to 129) with regard to liability to the Railway Administration for death and injury to passenger due to accidents. For convenience , Section 123, 124 and 124-A of the Act are reproduced as under:-

" 123. Definitions- In this Chapter , unless the context otherwise requires-

(a) "accident" means as accident of the nature described in Section 124;

(b) "dependent" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:

(I) the wife, husband , son and daughter , and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;

(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependent wholly or party on the deceased passenger;

(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependent on the deceased passenger;

(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependent on the deceased passenger.

[(c) '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, clock room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passenger]

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 passenger, 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 to 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 good owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train sustained as a result of such accident.

Explanation- For the purposes of this section " passenger" includes a railway servant on duty.

124-A. 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 traveling by a train carrying passenger, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."

The plain reading of Section 123 reveals that in the event of accident causing injury or death of the passenger, the Railway shall be responsible to pay damages notwithstanding the fact that the railway administration is not at fault and in view of any other law, railway is not liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed.

Section 123 defines " accident" as well as " untoward incident" . Definition of the 'accident ' has been co-related with the 'untoward incident' given in Section 124. Section 124 provides that whenever an accident occurs , being either because of the collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passenger 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 wrongly fact, 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.

Section 124-A relates to the compensation on account 'untoward incident'. It provides that when during the course of working in railway an 'untoward incident' occurs, then whether or not there ha 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 killed, the railway administration shall be liable to pay compensation subject to exceptions given in the proviso.

Further, the provisions as provided under Section 123(c) of the Act is beneficial piece of legislation. It should be interpreted liberally . The Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , 2008 ACJ 1895 (SC) has held that the object of the Act is for the benefit of the persons for whom the Act was made and should be given a liberal and not strict interpretation . On account of this reason, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that if any one falls down from any part of the train , it should be considered to be accidental falling. Upper berth is an integral part of the compartment,therefore, if anybody falls down from the upper berth to the floor of the train, it would be considered as accidental falling from the train . It was the duty of the respondent to prove that the deceased had not taken due precaution or he fall down due to his overtact.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the cae of Union of India Vs. Uggina Srinivasa Rao , 2001(2) TAC 501(AP) has held as under :-

" It has to be held that the accidental fall from any part of the compartment is covered by untoward incident. If there is a fall from the steps leading to the compartment, it is a fall from the train. The steps of the compartment cannot be disassociated from the compartment. They are ingegral part of the compartment. Therefore, the contention that the deceased met with an accident while boarding on a running train is not untoward incident, cannot be accepted. Also the contention that the person who is trying to board a train is not a passenger, cannot be accepted."

The High Court of Bombay in Sahadeo Sindhu Sans and another (Supra) has observed in para-10 as under:-

"10. Apart from the aforesaid factual position as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , 2008 ACJ 1895 (SC) , a restricted and narrow meaning should not be given to Section 123(c) of the Railways Act as that would deprive large number of victims in train accidents from getting compensation under the Act . In my view , though the wording of Section 123(c)(2) talks about accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, the actual falling need not be outside the train. There can be cases where the passenger can be accidentally hit say by a stone pelted by a miscreant from outside, who falls within the train. The wording of Section 123(c)(2) does not require that he should necessarily fall outside the train. Emphasis of the said definition is on an untoward incident caused in an accident and once the accident has occurred not much importance can be given as to whether body of the passenger falls inside or outside the train."

From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Railway Claims Tribunal under challenge in the present case , the Tribunal after considering the entire material and evidence on record held that the death of the deceased Radha Krishan Gupta was caused , as he fell down from upper berth while tavelling from Rae Bareilly to Dehradun on 28.5.2000 by train No. 4265 Up Janta Express, so the case of the claimant is covered within the definition of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 , and accordingly the compensation has been awarded, thus there is no irregularity of infirmity in the impugned award passed by Railway Claims Tribunal .

In the result , the appeal fails and dismissed .

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 17.09.2013

dk/