Delhi High Court
Saraswati Devi & Ors. vs Uoi on 3 January, 2017
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03rd January, 2017
+ FAO 216/2009
SARASWATI DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Rohit Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
UOI ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Mr.
Rohit Dutta, Advs. for Northern
Railways
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Railway
Claims Tribunal whereby their application for compensation has been
dismissed.
2. The appellants are the widow, son and daughters of late Amar
Singh who had gone to New Delhi Railway Station on 31 st August,
2007 to see off his friend. The deceased had a valid platform ticket
with him and due to heavy rush at the platform, he fell down near the
Central Bridge of platforms 8 and 9 at about 12 pm and came under
the wheels of Dehradun Shatabdi Express which was shunting at the
relevant time.
3. The learned Tribunal held that the incident does not fall within
the definition of untoward incident defined in Section 123(c) of the
Railways Act, 1989.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the
hearing of the appeal that the incident in question falls within the
meaning of "untoward incident" in Section 123(c) of the Railways
Act. It is submitted that the Section 123(c) of the Railways Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation and has to be given a wider meaning.
5. Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, learned counsel for the Railways has
produced the record of DRM, Railways which confirms the
genuineness of the incident dated 31st August, 2007. As per the record
of the DRM Railways, the deceased fell down near the Central Bridge
of platforms 8 and 9 at New Delhi Railway Station on 31 st August,
2007 at about 12.00 pm and was run over by Dehradun Shatabdi
Express and the deceased had a valid platform ticket at the time of the
accident.
6. Section 124A of the Railways Act lays down strict liability or
no fault liability in case of untoward incidents. Section 123(c) of the
Railways Act defines „untoward incident‟ to include the accidental
falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. The word
„passenger‟ has been defined under section Section 2 (29) of the
Railways Act as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The
Explanation to Section 124A clarifies that the word „passenger‟
includes a railway servant on duty; and a person who has purchased a
valid ticket for travelling by a train or a valid platform ticket and
becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
7. The aforesaid provision for compensation in the Railways Act is
a beneficial piece of legislation which should receive a liberal and
wider interpretation as it would advance the object of the statute and
serve its purpose. The untoward incident shall cover the accidents
suffered by a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger with a valid ticket,
pass or a platform ticket in the railway premises.
8. In Santosh v. Union of India, Through General Manager,
Western Railway, Mumbai, Claim No.OA(IIu)621/2012 decided on
9th December, 2016, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench has
interpreted the untoward incident in Section 123(c) of the Railways
Act as under:
"The fundamental requirement before a victim or his family
could claim compensation for injuries or death as the case may
be is that the victim shall have been a passenger. The
expression is technically used to limit it only to a person who
has a valid ticket or a pass, in terms of s 2 (29) of the Railways
Act. As regards the applicability of provision for untoward
incident, the Act creates a notional extension of the definition
through explanation to s 124A of the Railways Act also to a
person who holds a platform ticket who may not have authority
to travel by train but whose presence in the railway premises
cannot be construed as unauthorised and injury or death to
such a person shall also be taken as an actionable as a specie of
untoward incident.
There are some confusions about the test of a person being a
„passenger‟ (i) expressed in contra-distinction to an
unauthorized person/ trespasser and (ii) raising presumptions
as regards the character of a person as „passenger‟ in the train.
Every person who transits in a train does not get to be a
„passenger‟ under the Railways Act. There are three categories:
(i) a person with a valid ticket to travel; (ii) a person who holds
a railway pass to travel and (iii) a person who holds a platform
ticket. In every one of the categories, so long as he is in railway
premises or a train, he shall be taken as a passenger. His or her
presence in the railway premises or a train shall be taken as
authorized. It is for this reason that there are decisions which
make an extended meaning to the definition passenger to a
person who comes into the plat form and gets into a wrong train
(Gaurav Kapoor and others v Union of India III(2014) ACC
639 (Del) or a person who purchases a passenger train ticket
and gets into an express train (Santoshi v Union of India, FAO
267/2014 (Del)); person travelling atop a train and not inside a
passenger compartment (Raj Pal Goel and another v Union of
India 2014 ACJ 2315) or a person breaking journey without an
endorsement and getting into another in continuation of the
journey to the destination station (Dwarika Mahto and others v
Union of India 2013 ACJ 768). In all these situations, it is
possible to feed meaning and logic to the decisions, only if we
recognise that primacy always is the lawful authority to enter
the railway premises when the incident of travel itself becomes
secondary. The judicial tool of liberal construction for a
welfare legislation could alone justify these decisions in order
that the categories of persons to whom the benefit is intended to
apply, being generally poor where only a modest compensation
is provided under the Act, ought not to be denied even such a
small benefit."
9. The accident in question is an untoward incident and therefore,
the appellants are entitled to the compensation under Section 124A of
the Railways Act and it does not fall in any of the clauses (a) to (e) of
the Proviso to Section 124A.
10. The appeal is allowed and the compensation of Rs.4 lakh is
awarded to the appellant along with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of filing of the application before the Claims Tribunal i.e. 2 nd
January, 2008.
11. List for disbursement on 22nd February, 2017.
12. The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation along
with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a
cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Saraswati Devi within 30
days. UCO Bank shall keep the said amount in fixed deposit till
further orders.
13. The appellants shall remain present in Court on the next date of
hearing along with particulars of their savings bank accounts near their
place of residence.
14. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Joydeep
Mazumdar, learned counsel for the Railways in this matter.
15. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties
under the signature of the Court Master.
JANUARY 03, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
dk
