Delhi High Court
Urmila Devi vs Uoi on 3 January, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03rd January, 2017
+ FAO 70/2009
URMILA DEVI ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
versus
UOI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Mr.
Puneet Agrawal and Mr. Rohit
Dutta, Advocates for Railways
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Railway Claims
Tribunal whereby his application for compensation has been
dismissed.
2. On 05th March, 2006 at about 10:15 p.m, late Sudhir Kumar Jha
was boarding train No.2562 at New Delhi Railway Station for going
to Muzaffarpur when six passengers fell on the railway line due to the
heavy rush at the platform and the parcels kept by the Commercial
Department on the platform. Three persons including Sudhir Kumar
Jha expired whereas the other three suffered grievous injuries. The
appellant is the mother of the deceased, Sudhir Kumar Jha who filed
the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal
dismissed the application for compensation on the ground that the
accident does not fall within the definition of "untoward incident"
under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
3. Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, learned counsel for Railways has
produced the record of the DRM which confirms that the parcels were
stocked by the Commercial Department of Railways but tends to
exonerate Railways on the ground that the passengers are supposed to
take all possible care to avoid the accident.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The appellants are entitled to the compensation under Section
124A of the Railways Act as the accident in question is an untoward
incident and it does not fall in any of the clauses (a) to (e) of the
Proviso to Section 124A. The Commercial Department of the
Railways was primarily negligent in stocking the parcels on the
platform which endangered the safety of the passengers on the
platform and is an offence under Sections 153, 154 and 175(c) of the
Railways Act.
8. The appeal is allowed and the amount of Rs.4 lakh along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 05th March,
2006 is awarded to the appellant.
9. The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount
along with upto date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c
Urmila Devi within 30 days. UCO Bank shall keep the said amount in
fixed deposit till further orders.
10. List for disbursement on 22nd February, 2017.
11. The appellant shall remain present in Court on the next date of
hearing along with particulars of her savings bank account near the
place of her residence.
12. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties
under signatures of the Court Master.
JANUARY 03, 2017/ rsk J.R. MIDHA, J.
