Bombay High Court
Vandana Wd/O Gautam Patil And Others vs Union Of India, Thr. General Manager, ... on 30 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1366
1 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2018
APPELLANTS : 1] Vandana Wd/o Gautam Patil,
Aged about 43 years, Occu. Household
2] Hasan S/o Gautam Patil,
Aged about 25 years, Occu. Student,
3] Kavita D/o Gautam Patil,
Aged about 24 years, Occu. Student,
4] Rakesh S/o Gautam Patil,
Aged about 23 years, Occu. Student.
All R/o Helodi, Post - Dahegaon,
(Gosavi), Tah. Seloo, Dist. Wardha.
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"
2 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
for short), challenge is to the judgment and order dated 30.03.2016
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 to 4 are the children of the deceased. The appellants claim that
deceased Gautam and his family members had gone to Tuljapur. On
10.06.2011, the deceased was travelling by Train No. 51285 i.e.
Bhusaval - Nagpur passenger from Tuljapur to Ajni Nagpur with his
relatives. They claim that when the train reached Butibori Railway
Station, the deceased got down from the train to purchase snacks.
Before the deceased came back, the train started. The deceased tried to
board the train and in the process, he fell down. He was crushed under
the wheel of the train and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket. The
death was in an untoward incident.
3. The respondent-Railway filed written statement and
opposed the claim. In sum and substance, the respondent-Railway
3 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
denied the material facts pleaded in the claim petition. It was contended
that the death was due to the negligence of the deceased and as such the
death was not in an untoward incident. It was further contended that
the deceased was negligent and responsible for the accident.
4. The parties have adduced evidence before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, on consideration of evidence, found that there was no
substance in the claim and dismissed the claim. Being aggrieved by this
judgment and order, the appellants have come before this Court in
appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Kunal Mirache, learned advocate for the
appellants and Ms. Neerja 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 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
7. Learned advocate Mr. Kunal Mirache for the appellants
submitted that the respondent-Railway has admitted that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket. Learned
advocate submitted that even if the defence of respondent-Railway is
accepted as it is, even then the claim could not have been rejected on
the ground of negligence on the part of the deceased. Learned advocate
submitted that in this case, the deceased fell while boarding the moving
train at Butibori Railway Station. Learned advocate submitted that the
injuries sustained by the deceased while boarding the train would fall
within the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from 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"). Learned advocate, in order to seek support to this
submission, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported at
AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 383. Learned advocate submitted that the death
would fall in the first part of Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. Learned
advocate submitted that the act of the deceased could not be said to be
intentional and as such the injuries sustained by the deceased could not
be said to be self-inflicted injuries. Learned advocate submitted that the
5 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
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 vs. Rina Devi, reported at AIR 2018 SC
2362.
8. Learned advocate Ms. Neerja Choube for the respondent-
Railway, submitted that the Guard of the train has been examined to
prove that after crossing half of the platform by the train, the deceased
tried to board the running train and in the process, fell down, sustained
injuries and died. Learned advocate submitted that the deceased in the
first instance, would not have got down from the train at the Railway
Station. Learned advocate submitted that after departure of the train,
when the deceased realized that he would miss the train, he tried to
catch the running train and in the process, fell down and died. Learned
6 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
advocate submitted that this intentional act on the part of the deceased
would be a criminal negligence. Learned advocate submitted that the
injuries sustained in this process would be self-inflicted injuries, as
understood by the Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act of 1989.
Learned advocate submitted that learned Member of the Tribunal has
properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly rejected the claim
application.
9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have
minutely perused the record and proceedings. The deceased was
travelling with his family members with valid journey ticket. The
accidental death of the deceased is not in dispute at Butibori Railway
Station. Undisputedly, the train in question arrived at Butibori Railway
Station at 8.00 a.m. The train halted at Butibori Railway Station for
about an hour. The train departed at 8.58 a.m. This fact would,
undisputedly, show that all the passengers in the morning hours were
stranded at the railway station without any information or intimation. It
is not the case of the Railway that the scheduled halt of the train at
Butibori Railway Station was for one hour. The delay of one hour, as
can be seen from the record, occurred for the lack of green signal to the
train for the onward journey. It is not the case of the Railway that
7 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
during this period of one hour, the passengers were informed by public
announcement about the reason for delay as well as the scheduled time
of departure of the train. The evidence adduced by RW1 and RW2 is
conspicuously silent on this aspect. RW2, the Guard of the train, has
stated that before departure of the train, he blew whistle to warn the
passengers to get inside the train and thereafter, he gave a signal to the
Loco Pilot to start the train. It has come on record that the deceased had
gone out to bring snacks for his family members, who were inside the
train and waiting for departure for almost an hour. All the above facts
are required to be borne in mind while appreciating the contentions
raised by the parties. RW2 has stated that when the deceased was trying
to board the moving train, he warned him not to chase and board the
moving train, but the deceased did not pay any heed to his suggestion.
He has stated that the deceased in the process of boarding the moving
train, slipped from the staircase and was crushed under the wheel and
died. The question is whether this act of the deceased, while boarding a
moving train in the above-stated factual situation, could be said to be an
intentional act, amounting to criminal negligence. Similarly, whether
the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident, could be said to
be self-inflicted injuries ?
8 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
10. In my view, the issue raised in this case has been covered
by the decision of 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
9 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
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."
11. 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) of the Act of
1989. The Apex Court has observed that it will not make any difference
10 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
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 legialation, it should receive liberal and wider
interpretation. In my view, on this point, the case of the appellants
would be fully covered by the decision in Prabhakaran's case (supra).
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."
11 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
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'. 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
appellants/claimants.
14. In this case, at the most, the act could be said to be a
negligent act on the part of the deceased. It needs to be stated that the
deceased and his family members were travelling from Tuljapur to Ajni.
The train halted at Butibori Railway Station for about an hour. The
scheduled halt was not more than 4-5 minutes. The deceased, in this
situation, was bound to search for snacks for his family members. He
got down at the railway station to bring the snacks. The Railway did not
make any public announcement about the reason for such a long halt.
Similarly, it is not the case of the Railway that public announcement was
12 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
made for the information of the passengers about the reason for the
delay in scheduled departure of the train. It was the duty of the Railway
to take care of the situation. The Railway would not have left the
passengers in the lurch. There was nothing wrong on the part of the
deceased to go and fetch snacks for his family members. If the
announcement was made, then the deceased would have made a timely
entry into the train. Without any public announcement, the train
started after one hour. The deceased, in his anxiety to get into the train,
which was moving, tried to catch the train and in the process his hand
slipped from the handle and he fell down. In my view, therefore, this
would amount to accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers and as such, it would be an untoward incident. The problem
of the passengers, due to halt of the train at Butibori Railway Station,
had been compounded by the Railway. The Railway was equally
responsible for this incident.
15. In the facts and circumstances, I conclude that the
accidental falling of the deceased from a running train in this manner
and his death in the incident, would be an untoward incident. A wider
interpretation has to be accorded to the provisions of this Act. The
13 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
claimants, who are not otherwise at fault, cannot be denied the benefit
by adopting the interpretation, which is not consistent with the
intention of the legislature. Accordingly, I conclude that learned
Member of the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim application.
The deceased was a bona fide passenger. The death was in an untoward
incident. As such, I record my finding on both the points in affirmative.
The impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside.
16. In this case, the accident had occurred on 10.06.2011. 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
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
14 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
appellants/ claimants would be entitled to get Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lakhs only), without interest.
17. Accordingly, the First Appeal is allowed.
i] The judgment and order dated 30.03.2016, passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in case No. OA(IIu)/
NGP/2011/0266, is set aside. The claim petition is allowed.
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 70% share and appellant nos.2 to 4 shall be entitled to get 10%
15 FA252.18 (J) final.odt
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 12:04:05
