Delhi High Court
Mukesh Rani & Ors. vs Union Of India on 3 January, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03rd January, 2017
+ FAO 378/2009
MUKESH RANI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Yogesh Swaroop and Mr.
Kapil K. Kaushik, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Joydeep Majumdar,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants have challenged the order of the Railway Claims
Tribunal whereby their application for compensation has been
dismissed.
2. On 25th July, 2008, Jagbir Singh was waiting for a train on the
platform of Mangolpuri Railway Station when he accidently fell down
on the railway track due to the over-crowd and was ran over by
Awadh Assam Express Train. The deceased was survived by widow
and two minor children who filed the claim petition before the Claims
Tribunal.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger holding a valid ticket at the time of accident. However,
learned Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that Section
123(c) of the Railways Act only covers the cases of the passengers
who accidently fall down from the train. Learned Tribunal held that
since the deceased has not fallen down from the train, the claim does
not come within the definition of an untoward incident as defined in
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
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 Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ
1895 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the expression "accidental
falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes
accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a
valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down
during the process. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
hereunder:-
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 advances the object of the statute and serves
its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal
Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC
(L&S) 482] (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat
Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 193 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 131] (SCC
para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI
Corpn. [(2000) 1 SCC 332 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 121]
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. v. Workmen [AIR 1961 SC 647] (AIR
para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority[(1984) 4
SCC 356 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 753 : AIR 1984 SC 1842]
(AIR para 11), Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile
Mills Ltd. [(1981) 2 SCC 238 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 316 :
AIR 1981 SC 852] (AIR para 13), S.M.
Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager [(2003) 4 SCC 27 :
2003 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC para 12).
xxx xxx xxx
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 travelling 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 travelling 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.
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. The appeal is allowed and the award of Rs.4 lakh along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim
petition i.e. 12th September, 2008 is awarded to the appellants.
10. The Railways are directed to deposit the award amount along
with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a
cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Mukesh Rani within four
weeks. UCO Bank shall keep the said amount in fixed deposit till
further orders. Order of disbursement shall be passed on the next date
of hearing.
11. List on 22nd February, 2017.
12. 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.
13. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties
under signature of Court Master.
JANUARY 03, 2017/ rsk J.R. MIDHA, J.
