Bombay High Court
Rita Wd/O Rajesh Belkhode And Others vs Union Of India, Thr. General Manager, ... on 30 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1365
1 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2018
APPELLANTS : 1] Rita Wd/o Rajesh Belkhode,
Aged about 43 years, Occu. Household
2] Piyush s/o Rajesh Belkhode.
Aged about 22 years, Occu. Student,
3] Neha D/o Rajesh Belkhode,
Aged about 19 years, Occu. Student,
All R/o House No. 1081/19, Sujata Nagar,
Binaki Layout, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : Union of India,
through General Manager,
Central Railway, C.S.T., Mumbai.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kunal P. Mirache, Advocate for the appellants
Ms. Neerja G. Choube, Advocate for the respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : JANUARY 30, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1987"
for short), the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 20.04.2017
2 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur,
whereby the claim for compensation filed by the appellants came to be
dismissed.
2. Background facts :-
Appellant no.1 is the wife of the deceased, and appellant
nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. The appellants claim that
on 15.10.2014, deceased Rajesh after purchasing the journey ticket at
Ajni Railway Station, boarded Nagpur-Kazipeth passenger Train
No.57135 to go to Butibori. They claimed that the deceased, while
travelling from Ajni to Butibori Railway Station accidentally fell from a
moving train. He came under the wheel of the train on the up-loop line
between Kilometer No. 809/7-9 and died due to the injuries sustained
by him. The journey ticket was found at the time of Panchanama.
According to the claimants, the death was in an untoward incident and
therefore, they are entitled to get compensation.
3. The respondent-Railway filed written statement and
opposed the claim. It is contended that the death was not in an
untoward incident. The deceased tried to de-board the moving train at
3 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
Butibori Railway Station and therefore, he fell from the train and died.
The deceased was negligent. The injuries sustained by him were self-
inflicted injuries.
4. The appellant no.1 examined herself as a sole witness. She
relied upon number of documents. Not a single witness was examined
by the respondent-Railway. Learned Member of the Tribunal did not
believe the evidence of appellant no.1 and ultimately dismissed the
claim. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the appellants are
before this Court in appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Kunal Mirache, learned advocate for the
appellants and Ms. Neeraja Choube, learned advocate for the
respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.
6. In the facts and circumstances, following points fall for my
determination :-
i] Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling
by the train in question with a valid journey ticket ?
ii] Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident within
the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 ?
4 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
7. Learned advocate Mr. Kunal Mirache for the appellants
submitted that the Tribunal has accepted the case of the appellants that
the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Learned advocate submitted
that there is ample evidence to prove that the deceased fell from a
moving train while de-boarding the train at Butibori Railway Station
and died due to the injuries sustained by him. Learned advocate
submitted that the place of the incident was at platform no.2 of Butibori
Railway Station. Learned advocate took me through the spot
panchanama and pointed out that the spot of the incident was hardly at
a distance of 10-15 feet from Butibori Railway Station at Wardha side.
Learned advocate submitted that even if the case of the respondent-
Railway is accepted as it is, then it would not be sufficient to reject the
claim of the appellants. Learned advocate submitted that the facts
proved on record indicate that the train might have just departed from
the railway station and at that time, the deceased while de-boarding the
train fell from the train and died due to the injuries sustained by him.
Learned advocate submitted that the death or injury in the course of
boarding or de-boarding train at railway station, would be covered by
the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from train carrying
passengers", which is an "untoward incident" as defined under Section
5 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act
of 1989"). Learned advocate submitted that the injuries sustained by
the deceased 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".
8. Learned advocate Ms. N.G. Choube for the respondent-
Railway, submitted that the statement of a friend of the deceased, who
was a co-passenger, clearly indicates that they woke up after the
departure of the train from Butibori Railway Station and the deceased
while de-boarding the moving train fell down and was crushed under
the wheel of the train and died. Learned advocate submitted that the act
of the deceased of de-boarding the moving train at railway station,
could not be said to be an accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers. Learned advocate submitted that de-boarding the
running train was an intentional act on the part of the deceased, which
resulted in his death. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the
injuries sustained by the deceased were self-inflicted injury. Learned
advocate submitted that the deceased was solely responsible for this
6 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
incident and as such the learned Member was right in rejecting the
claim application.
9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have
minutely perused the record and proceedings. The admitted facts,
having bearing on the issue involved in the appeal, need to be stated at
the outset. The journey ticket was found from the trouser pocket of the
deceased at the time of panchanama. The deceased was a bona fide
passenger from Ajni to Butibori. It is not the case of the respondent-
Railway that the deceased was run over by the train in question. It is
undisputed that, at the time of the accident, the train was moving on
the Up loopline. The spot of the incident, as can be seen from the spot
panchanama, is platform no.2. The spot was at a distance of 10-15 feet
from the platform. It is, therefore, apparent that the train was not
moving at high speed on the loopline. The train had just started moving
from the platform. The deceased, undisputedly, fell from a moving train
and came under the wheel of the train and died due to the injuries
sustained by him. In the backdrop of the undisputed facts as stated
above, the question that needs consideration is whether the death of the
deceased was due to self-inflicted injuries? or whether the deceased was
7 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
negligent while de-boarding the moving train without taking proper
precaution ?.
10. The appellant no.1 has adduced evidence. The respondent-
Railway has not examined any witness. The question of fact needs to be
appreciated, keeping in mind the provisions of the law. It would be
appropriate to re-produce Section 124A of the Act of 1989. It reads
thus :-
"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
8 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
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".
11. Similarly, it would be necessary to reproduce Section
123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989. It reads thus :-
"S.123. Definitions. - In this Chapter, unless the context
otherwise requires,-
(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in
section 124;
(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
[(c) "untoward incident" means--
1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers.]
12. As per the Proviso to Section 124A, the Railway is not
liable to pay compensation, if the case is covered under any of the
clauses under the Proviso. If the case is not covered under any of the
clauses under the Proviso, then such a case would fall within the first
part of Section 124A. If the case falls within the first part of Section
9 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
124A, then the Railway is liable to pay the compensation. As per
Section 123(c)(2), accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers is termed as an untoward incident.
13. In this case, the deceased tried to de-board the train after it
departed from the railway station. However, the facts established on the
basis of the evidence, clearly indicate that the train at the relevant time
was not moving at high speed. The train had just started moving. It was
on the loopline. The deceased, after realizing that the train had left
Butibori station, which was his destination, must have realized his
mistake. After realizing this, in an anxiety to get down from the train,
he might have tried to move towards the door. The question is whether
the injuries sustained by the deceased in such a situation, could be said
to be self-inflicted injuries? In my view, the injuries sustained by a bona
fide passenger, in such a situation, could not be said to be an intentional
act resulting in self-inflicted injury. At the most, it could be said to be a
negligent act. Such an act could not be said to be a criminal negligence.
Such an act does not fall under any of the clauses of the Proviso to
Section 124A. In this context, it would be profitable to refer to a
decision of The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India .vs. Prabhakaran
10 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
Vijaya Kumar and others, reported at AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 383. The
facts of Prabhakaran's case (supra) and the case on hand are similar.
14. In Prabhakaran's case (supra), the deceased sustained
injuries while boarding a moving train and died due to the injuries
sustained in the accident. In this case, the deceased tried to de-board a
moving train in his anxiety to get down from the train. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that in such a situation, the deceased would be
covered within the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a
train carrying passengers", which is an "untoward incident", as defined
under Section 123(c) of the Act of 1989. 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
11 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
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
above mentioned 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.
12 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
15. In my view, the proposition of law laid down in
Prabhakaran's case (supra) would be squarely applicable to the case of
the appellants. As far as the issue of negligence or contributory
negligence of a passenger is concerned, it would be appropriate to
consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of
India vs. Rina Devi, reported at AIR 2018 SC 2362. For the purpose of
addressing the issue in the case on hand, paragraph 16.6 of the decision
would be relevant. 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. Versus 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."
16. In Rina Devi (supra), it is held that self-inflicted injury
would require intention to inflict such injury. It is further held that the
13 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
principle of contributory negligence cannot be invoked in such cases
because such cases are based on 'no fault theory' or 'strict liability'. It is
held that the death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a
train will be an 'untoward incident, entitling the victim to compensation
and will not fall under the Proviso to Section 124-A merely on plea of
negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. In the case on hand, if
it is accepted that the negligence of the deceased was a contributing
factor in the incident, it would still fall within the definition of an
'untoward incident'. It could not be said to be a self-inflicted injury. In
such cases, the Proviso to Section 124-A would not get attracted.
17. In the facts and circumstances, considering the beneficial
nature of the legislation, the interpretation, which is in favour of the
victim has to be adopted, even if two views are possible. Accordingly, I
conclude that learned Member of the Tribunal was not right in rejecting
the claim of the appellants. The impugned judgment and order passed
by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. As such, I record my finding on
point nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. The impugned judgment and order
deserves to be set aside.
14 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
18. In this case, the accident had occurred on 15.10.2014. In
view of the Notification issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway
Board) dated 22.12.2016, came into effect from 01.01.2017, in case of a
death claim, the claimant/s is/are entitled to get compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only). In view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. 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 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
appellants/ claimants would be entitled to get Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lakhs only), without interest.
19. Accordingly, the First Appeal is allowed.
i] The judgment and order dated 20.04.2017, passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in case No. OA(IIu)/
NGP/2015/0202, is set aside. The claim petition is allowed.
15 FA203.18 (J) final.odt
ii] Respondent - Central Railway is directed to pay Rs.
8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) towards compensation to the
appellants within four months from the date of this judgment.
iii] The amount be deposited directly in the bank accounts of
the appellants. The appellants are directed to provide their bank
account details to the respondent-Railway.
iv] The appellants will not be entitled to get any interest on
the amount of compensation to be paid by the respondent. However,
the appellants 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 the said period.
v] Out of total compensation, appellant no.1 shall be entitled
to get 50% share and appellant nos.2 and 3 shall be entitled to get 25%
share each.
vi] The First Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
No order as to costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
( G. A. SANAP, J. )
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/02/2024 12:02:36
