Delhi High Court
Ranjeet vs Union Of India on 24 November, 2017
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24th November, 2017
+ FAO 181/2010
RANJEET .... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA .... Respondent
Through: Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Lead
Counsel Northern Railway with
Mr.Rohit Dutta, Mr.Kamlesh
Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 16th December, 2009
whereby the appellant‟s application for compensation has been dismissed.
2. On 4th July, 2008, the appellant fell down from Gorakh Dham Express
bearing train No.2556 on platform no.2 of Kishan Ganj Railway Station,
and he suffered grievous injuries which resulted in amputation of right leg
below knee level. The appellant was aged about 12 years at the time of the
accident.
3. The Railways did not dispute that the appellant fell down from
Gorakh Dham Express on 4th July, 2008 but the claim was contested on the
ground that the appellant was negligent as he was travelling on the
footboard of the compartment and the appellant was travelling without ticket
and, therefore, was not a bona fide passenger.
4. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the
appellant did not hold a valid ticket at the relevant time and therefore, was
not a bona fide passenger.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that
the appellant was aged about 12 years at the time of the accident and he lost
the ticket during the journey.
6. The legal position with respect to the untoward incident inside the
railway station is well settled. Section 124-A of the Railways Act is based
on the principle of no fault liability and the compensation cannot be denied
to the appellant on the ground that the deceased was negligent and it is
wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. 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 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. As such, there are three
categories of persons who are defined as passengers: - (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 each of the categories, so long as a
person is in railway premises or a train, he is taken as a passenger. His or her
presence in the railway premises or a train is taken as authorized. It is for
this reason that there are decisions which extend meaning of the term
"passenger" to a person who comes to a platform and gets into a wrong train
[Gaurav Kapoor 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, 2014 SCC Online Del 6510 (Del)]; person
travelling atop a train and not inside a passenger compartment [Raj Pal
Goel v. Union of India, 2014 ACJ 2315] or a person breaking journey
without an endorsement and getting into another train in continuation of the
journey to the destination station [Dwarika Mahto 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 recognize that primacy always is the lawful
authority to enter the railway premises when the incident of travel itself
becomes secondary.
7. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527,
a lady fell down while trying to enter the train and was run over by the train.
Railways contended that the deceased was negligent and there was no fault
of Railways. The Supreme Court held that Section 124-A lays down strict
liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case
comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who
was at fault. 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.........
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...........................
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.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in
case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview
of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
xxx xxx xxx
52. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the submission
of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no fault on the part
of the Railways, or that there was contributory negligence, is based
on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. In Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, a passenger
travelling by Awadh Express with a valid ticket fell down near Magarwara
Railway Station which resulted in his death. Railways contended that the
deceased was negligent in standing at the door near Magarwara Railway
Station where the train does not stop. The Railway Claims Tribunal allowed
the claim which was set aside by the High Court in appeal on the ground that
the deceased was negligent. The Supreme Court held that the negligence of
the deceased will not have any effect on the liability to pay compensation
under Section 124A. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
"7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in
holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under
Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down
from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the
Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of
the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is
entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the
fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no
evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place
in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed
that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own
negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under
Section 124-A of the Act.
xxx xxx xxx
10. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from
the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was,
therefore, clearly a "passenger" for the purpose of Section 124-A as
clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-
A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act,
neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the
proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have
no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or
injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses
(a) to (e).
11. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the
Railways that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of
self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own
criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he
died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train
was, thus, clearly accidental.
12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed
by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the
train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways
itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very
uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act
mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act
envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or
mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running
train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it
is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail
even after assuming everything in its favour.
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. In Harvinder Kaur v. Union of India, 2012 ACJ 854, a passenger
died due to accidental slip from the train on account of heavy rush of
passengers and sudden jerk of the train. Railways contended that the
passenger fell down because he attempted to get down from a moving train
at an unscheduled stoppage. This Court, relying on Jameela (supra), held
that even the case of a passenger, who might have been negligently standing
on the footboard, was covered by the definition of „untoward incident‟ and
was entitled to compensation.
10. In Union of India Owning Southern Railway v. The Addl. Registrar,
Railways Claims Tribunal, (2012) 5 Mad LJ 562, the passenger travelled in
Chennai-Mangalore Express from Chennai to Karur. The train had an
unscheduled halt at Veeravakiyam Railway Station. After some time, the
train started moving. The deceased fell down from the moving train and died
on the spot. The Madras High Court, following Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar (supra) and Jameela (supra), held that the dependants of the
deceased were entitled for compensation. Relevant portion is reproduced
hereunder: -
"27. Thus, from the above analysis of Sections 2 (29), 123, 123(c),
123(2) &124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, if a bona fide passenger dies
or sustain injuries, it will be an „untoward incident‟, and irrespective of
his negligence or contributory negligence, the Railway is liable to pay
compensation to the victims or the Dependants of the deceased as
prescribed under the Act. So, it introduced principle of „no fault
liability‟. It is also „Rule of strict liability‟."
xxx xxx xxx
31. The deceased was a bonafide Railway passenger. He fell down
from the moving train from the compartment and died. There is no
evidence from the Railways that he had attempted suicide, inflicted
injury due to his own criminal act or he was drunk or he is an insane
nor there was any natural cause or he suffered diseases. The Railways
has not established that his death falls under any one of the clauses
from (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the
Apex Court's decision in Prabhakaran Vijayakumar (supra)
and Jameela (supra) the stand of the Railways that he died due to
negligence (of course, it was not established) is of no avail to Railways
because the case before us is an „untoward incident‟ and Sections 123
and 124-A incorporates the Rule of Strict Liability or in other words, no
fault liability. So, in such circumstances, the negligence pleaded by the
Railways, even, if proved is to be ignored. The principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakaran Vijayakumar (supra)
and Jameela (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. Since
respondents 2 and 3 are dependants of the deceased, they are eligible
for compensation."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. The appellant is present in Court and his condition has been seen. He
has suffered amputation of right leg below knee. Dr. K.J.S. Bansal, Chief
Medical Officer (Incharge) of Medical and Health Centre, Delhi High Court
has examined the appellant today and issued a certificate according to which
the amputation stump below knee with stump exceeding is 20 cms (7.8") and
the appellant‟s case falls in category No.22 of the Schedule under Rule 3 of
the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment
Rules, 2016. The certificate of the Chief Medical Officer (Incharge),
Medical and Health Centre, Delhi High Court is taken on record.
12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and considering
that the appellant was a minor child aged about 12 years and was travelling
alone from Shakur Basti to New Delhi in the train and he fell down from
Gorakh Dham Express bearing train No.2556 on Kishan Ganj Railway
Station, platform no.2 and suffered amputation of his right leg and lost his
ticket during the journey, the appellant‟s fall from the train on 04th July,
2008 is held to be an untoward incident and he is entitled to compensation of
Rs.3,20,000/- under category No.22 of the Schedule under Rule 3 of the
Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment
Rules, 2016.
13. The appeal is allowed and compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application for
compensation from the Claims Tribunal i.e. 18th August, 2008 is awarded to
the appellant against the respondent.
14. The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount with
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the
name of UCO Bank A/c Ranjeet within four weeks.
15. List for disbursement of the amount on 16th January, 2018.
16. The appellant present in Court submits that he has savings bank A/c
No.3221131000233 with Canara Bank, Jigani Road, Bangalore - 560105
(PAN No.CYFPR9121N).
17. Canara Bank, Jigani Road, Bangalore Branch is directed not to issue
any cheque book and/or debit card to the appellant and if the same have
already been issued, the Canara Bank is directed to cancel the same.
Appellant shall produce the copy of this order before the Canara Bank
whereupon the bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook that no
cheque book or debit card shall be issued to appellant without the permission
of this Court. Appellant‟s counsel shall produce the original passbook with
the necessary endorsement before this Court on the next date of hearing.
18. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
NOVEMBER 24, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
dk
