Union Of India Through General ... vs Nand Lal Ghaley
2014 Latest Caselaw 7954 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Reserved
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 739 of 2009
 

 
Appellant :- Union Of India Through General Manager Northern Railway
 
Respondent :- Nand Lal Ghaley
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

By means of present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 17.3.2009 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in O.A. NO. 0600030 ( Nand Lal Galey and others Vs. Union of India) .

Facts, as pleaded by the claimant/respondent in claim petition are that deceased Nand Lal Galey, resident of village -Lapchoo, post-Lapchoo Tea Estate, Police-Station- Rangli Hat, District Darzling , West Bangal and was engaged as private security guard in a establishment at Delhi.

On 09.10.2005 after purchasing of valid ticket , he was returning from New Delhi to Jalpaiguri by Train No. 4056 Bramhaputra Express during Dashehra festival. on 10.10.2005 ,when the train reached West Central Kabin at pole no. 1599 near Mughalsarai railway station, Nand Lal Galey fell down from the train , sustained several injuries. In this regard , an F.I.R. was lodged at G.R.P. Police Station , Mughalsarai and two G.R.P. Constables, namely, Constable no. 372 Sanjay Awasthi and Constable No. 4687 Vijay Pal has carried him to Loco hospital where after examining by doctors of Loco Hospital, he was declared dead.

In view of the said factual background, a claim petition has been filed by the claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that deceased Nandlal Galey was traveling on valid ticket in Train No. 4056 Bramhaputra Express and he was fell down from the train on 10.10.2005 which comes within the definition of untoward incident, so compensation may be awarded to him .

On behalf of appellant/defendant a written statement has been filed inter alia stating taking a defense that neither he was the bona fide passenger of the train nor he was incidentally fell down from the train so the claim petition, as filed by the claimant, does not fulfill the necessary ingredients of Section 123 or 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989. The Railway Claims Tribunal, on the basis of pleading and material on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the claim petition by judgment and award dated 17.3.2009 thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- by way compensation alongwith 7% interest.

Sri B. K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the impugned judgment and award submits that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger at the time of incident shown in the incident register as 9.00 p.m. when the train reached Mughalsarai station at 9.40 p.m and depart at 10.00 p.m. so the alleged incident does not cover from the provisions as provided under Sections 123 and 124-A of the Railway Act,1989, hence the appeal liable to be allowed.

Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned judgment submits that the petitioner is bona fide passenger having valid ticket with him and due to accident which took place on 10.10.2005 he fall down from train no. 4056 Bramhaputra Express near Mughalsarai railway station. In this regard, necessary F.I.R. has been lodged thereafter doctor of Loco hospital after examining him has declared as dead , so keeping in view of the said fact, judgment given by Railway Claims Tribunal is perfectly valid and in accordance with law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (2008) 9 SCC 527 and this Court in the case of Smt. Akhtari Vs. Union of India, 2009 (27) LCD 240.

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

Section 123(c)(2) defines the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers as one of the untoward incidents referred to in the said provision. If literal meaning is given to such provision, it may result in holding that only when a passenger falls down from a train, the same can be termed as untoward incident. If it is considered in the light of exemption provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, such an interpretation shall not be desirable. The following alone are the exemptions provided therein:

(a)suicide or attempted suicide,

(b)self-inflicted injury,

(c)injury caused by his own criminal act,

(d)any act committed by the passenger in a state of intoxication or insanity, and

(e)any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment provided such treatment has not become necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

For better appreciation entire Section 124-A is reproduced hereunder:

"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 dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding any thing 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 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".

If a conjoint reading of Sections 123 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and a purposive interpretation is made taking into account the intention of the Legislature to protect the passengers sustaining injuries in untoward incidents, the term "accidental fall from the train" has to be interpreted to mean not only a fall from the train on the platform or ground but also a fall on the floor of the compartment itself. In all such cases, the appellants/applicants are not expected to plead or prove negligence on the part of the railway to prove liability cast on the railway to compensate the injured or the legal representative of the deceased.

In the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:-

"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 vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524(para 9), B. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12), Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc.

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. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647( para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27(para 12) etc.

13. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others 1995(6) SCC 326 (vide para 42) this Court observed:

"In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this Court in Workmen vs. American Express International Banking Corporation wherein Chinnappa Reddy, J. in para 4 of the Report has made the following observations:

"The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights' legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations the imposture of literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication must be recognized and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned with the 'colour', the 'content' and the 'context' of such statutes (we have borrowed the words from Lord Wilberforce's opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds). In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that law is not to be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquire beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is not to be interpreted purely on internal linguistic considerations. In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surender Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court we had occasion to say:

"Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions."

Francis Bennion in his Statutory Interpretation Second Edn., has dealt with the Functional Construction Rule in Part XV of his book. The nature of purposive construction is dealt with in Part XX at p. 659 thus:

"A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by-

(a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this Code called a purposive-and-literal construction), or

(b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive and strained construction)."

At p. 661 of the same book, the author has considered the topic of "Purposive Construction" in contrast with literal construction. The learned author has observed as under:

"Contrast with literal construction - Although the term 'purposive construction' is not new, its entry into fashion betokens a swing by the appellate courts away from literal construction. Lord Diplock said in 1975: 'If one looks back to the actual decisions of the [House of Lords] on questions of statutory construction over the last 30 years one cannot fail to be struck by the evidence of a trend away from the purely literal towards the purposive construction of statutory provisions'. The matter was summed up by Lord Diplock in this way -

...I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language used would lead to results which would clearly defeat the purposes of the Act. But in doing so the task on which a court of justice is engaged remains one of construction, even where this involves reading into the Act words which are not expressly included in it"

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 traveling 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 traveling 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 traveling 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 124A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states :

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

In the case of Smt. Akhtari Vs. Union of India ( supra) , this Court has held as under:-

"Section 124-A categorically provides that " whether or not, there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration", the injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed shall be entitled for damages in respect thereof. Accordingly, the passenger travelling on the train shall be entitled for damages or compensation. In the event of accident or untoward incident the presumption shall always be in favour of the passenger with regards to bona fide unless rebutted by the material and cogent evidence. In the present cae, driver and guard in ordinary course cannot be the eye-witnesses to establish that the deceased was at fault. Moreover, keeping the provisions contained in Section 50,51,57,58,59 of the Act, since the respondent has failed to discharge statutory obligation to regulate the passengers in the compartment of the train and because of necessity the deceased or the people are even in over-crowded train generally used to travel in second class, their bona fide may not be doubted.

The provisions contained in Chapter VIII and Chapter XV of the Act give ample power to the Railway to check the unauthorized travelers. Unless and until the passenger is caught hold by the railway authorities or is charged of travelling without ticket. It shall be presumed that person travalling in the train having valid ticket .However, such presumption is rebuttable. In the present case , since clothes were torn and the body of the deceased was dragged for about 100 meters or more, the presumption lies in favour of the deceased that he was possessing valid ticket while travelling from Hargaon Railway Station to Lakhimpur Railway Station.

The expression "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123(c) of the Act enumerates categories of meanings and in a restrictive and exclusionary sense as already notices. Each of the enumerated meanings clearly exclude the violation and participation of the victim in the act which denotes and " Untoward incident". From the structure of clause (c) an " Untoward incident" has been defined also to mean the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Three classes of occurrences viz. Commission of a terrorist act, or the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, have been included in sub-clause(1) and exemplified as events consequent on the act by any person in or on any train carrying passengers or in the enumerated premises."

In the instant matter from the perusal of the record it is clearly established from the record that on 10.10.2005 while the deceased was travelling from New Delhi to New Jalpaiguri by train no. 4056 Bramhaputra Express, he fell down near Mughalaarai railway station from where he has been taken to Loco hospital MughalSarai by two aforesaid constables for treatment where after examining him, he was declared dead . Further authority of railways has found that ticket bearing no. 75498687 the deceased Nandlal Galey is bona fide passenger travelling in Train no. 4056 Bramhaputra Express.

Thus, the sole argument which advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that deceased is not a bona fide passenger has got no force because the liability under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is a strict liability of the Railways in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, (2008) 9SCC 527 and Jameela and others Vs. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443, and once the deceased found to be a bona fide passenger with the valid train ticket, onus of proof has shifted to the Railway to show that the death was not on account of 'untoward incident'. So the compensation awarded by the Railways Claims Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 17.3.2009 is perfectly valid , needs no interference by this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 03.11.2014

dk/