Rani Devi vs Union Of India
2017 Latest Caselaw 4868 Del

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Decision: 8th September, 2017


+     FAO 104/2012

      RANI DEVI                                       ..... Appellant
                         Through     Mr. Yogesh Swroop, Mr. Kapil K.
                                     Kaushik, Advocates.

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA                                  ..... Respondent
                    Through          Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate for
                                     Railways.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                            JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 18 th November, 2011 whereby her application for compensation has been dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

2. The appellant is the widow of late Raj Kumar Gupta who was found in an injured condition on platform No.16 in the evening of 26 th February, 2010 whereupon he was taken to LNJP Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The appellant filed an application for compensation claiming that the deceased was holding a valid ticket No.M85339487 for travel from New Delhi to Patna and he fell down on platform No.16 while boarding Jan Sadharan Express train which was overcrowded.

3. The Claims Tribunal doubted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger as the ticket was not recovered from him but was later produced. The Claims Tribunal further doubted the incident on the ground that the Jan Sadharan Express departed at 15:20 hours whereas the injured was found in injured condition at 6:10 P.M.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he suffered an untoward incident on 26th February, 2010 which resulted in his death. He further submits that incident in question is an untoward incident.

5. 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 recognise that primacy always is the lawful authority to enter the railway premises when the incident of travel itself becomes secondary.

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. In the present case, the body of the deceased was admittedly found on the tracks of platform No.16 as per Detailed Accident Report (DAR).

Following the principles discussed above, the accident resulting in the death of Raj Kumar Gupta is held to be an untoward incident.

9. The next question arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to Rs.4 lakh as per the original claim before the Railways Claims Tirbunal or Rs.8 lakhs as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016.

10. The Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 has been amended by Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)

Amendment Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 01st January, 2017. By the said amendment, the compensation for death has been enhanced from Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.8 lakhs.

11. In Rathi Menon v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714, Rathi Menon, a Commerce graduate of 22 years, secured a job in Bangalore and was called for an interview at Trichur. On her way back to Bangalore on 3rd September, 1999, she boarded the Island Express (bound for Bangalore) at 8.00 P.M. from Palakkad Railway Station. After the train started moving and when it collected momentum, her ill-luck prompted her to have a face wash for which she moved to the wash basin situated next to the door of the train. While washing her face the train jerked violently at a turning and in that impact she was thrown off the running train during the night. Her spinal cord was ruptured and she turned a paraplegic and remained immovable forever. After she fell down, the wheels of the train ran over her right arm severing it from the shoulder point forever. The train, not knowing what it did to one of its lawful and innocent passengers, continued its running leaving the paraplegic on the track itself on that dreadful night. It was physiologically impossible for the young lady to move her leg from the position where she fell. Her right leg happened to remain on the rail-track, and unless a Good Samaritan had passed by that track during the night she had to remain there unmoved. As none like that came the poor female human being remained on the track bleeding and unattended by anyone. Alas, within half an hour another train came along the same track which, without knowing that a badly mauled human being was lying ahead, ran over her right leg causing a sudden amputation of that leg also. Thus, within the span of less than an hour, she became a one-handed and one-legged

paraplegic. All those disasters happened during the night of 3rd September, 1996. While she remained on the track unattended by any one she happened to be spotted by an engine driver who was shunting a railway engine. He got her removed from that scene to the district hospital, and then to a Medical College Hospital where she had to undergo a long period of hospitalization and remained immovable forever.

12. The Railway Claim Tribunal awarded Rs.6 lakh along with interest @ 15% per annum which was challenged before the Kerala High Court on the ground that the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation beyond the amount prescribed in the Railway Accident and Untoward incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation amount. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the order of the Claims Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the compensation amount has to be determined according to the Rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"12. As the above facts are not disputed by the Railway Administration the appellant was relieved of the burden to prove those facts averred in her claim petition. Thus, the only question which remained for the Claims Tribunal to decide was regarding the amount of compensation payable to her. Now the only question remaining is whether the High Court was so helpless that learned Judges could not confirm the amount awarded to her by the Claims Tribunal.

xxx xxx xxx

16. The liability of the Railway Administration in such a case would be to pay compensation, but the extent of such compensation is as may be prescribed which means prescribed by the rules made under

the Act. Section 129 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make such rules.

17. The Railway Accident Compensation Rules 1990 (for short the Rules) were made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 129 of the Act. Rule 3(1) says that the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be as specified in the Schedule. The Rules as well as the Schedule were amended with effect from 1.11.1997. After the amendment Rule 3(2) reads thus:

"3.(2) The amount of compensation payable for an injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule but which in the opinion of the claims Tribunal, is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do work, shall be Rupees four lakhs."

18. Item No.2 of Part III of the Schedule relates to amputation below shoulder with stump less than 8 from tip of acromion for which an amount of Rs.3.20 lakhs is shown as the compensation.

19. Item 20 in Part III of the Schedule relates to amputation below knee with stump exceeding three and a half inch but not exceeding five inches, for which an amount of Rupees two lakhs is shown as compensation.

20. Before the said amendment of the Rules and the Schedule which came into effect on 1.11.1997 the above amounts were respectively two lakhs (instead of rupees four lakhs) and 1.40 lakhs (instead of 3.20 lakhs) and one lakh (instead of two lakhs). Such amounts were revised by the Central Government in 1990. The revision of the rates was made after 8 years and thus the new rates were incorporated by amending the Schedule.

xxx xxx xxx

23. The collocation of the words "as may be prescribed" in Section 124-A of the Act is to be understood as to mean "as may be prescribed from time to time". The relevance of the date of untoward incident is that the right to claim compensation from the Railway Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. The statute did not fix the amount of compensation, but left it to be determined by the Central Government from time to time by means of rules. This delegation to the

Central Government indicates that it was difficult for Parliament to fix the amount because compensation amount is a varying phenomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous position to ascertain what would be the just and reasonable compensation in respect of a myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into account very many factors. What the legislature wanted was that the victim of the accident must be paid compensation and the amount must represent a reality which means the amount should be a fair and reasonable compensation. The Government has the better wherewithals to ascertain and fix such amount. It is for the said reason that Parliament left it to the Government to discharge that function. Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act speak the same language that "the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation". As pointed above, it is the liability of the Railway Administration to "pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed". Hence the time of ordering payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of the compensation which is prescribed by the rules to be disbursed to the claimant.

xxx xxx xxx

25. ...... The provisions are not intended to give a gain to the Railway Administration but they are meant to afford just and reasonable compensation to the victims as a speedier measure. If a person files a suit the amount of compensation will depend upon what the court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence when he goes before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation the determination of the amount should be as on the date of such determination."

13. The Supreme Court further held that where the appeals are pending before the High Court, the scale of compensation shall depend on the date on which the High Court delivers the judgment. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident.

30. From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the Rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation."

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. The Supreme Court explained the rational for granting compensation as per prescribed Rules at the time of making order as under:

"24......... when you pay the compensation in terms of money it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent value.

xxx xxx xxx

27.........Rupee value is not an unchanging unit in the monitory system. Students of economic history know that currency value remained static before the Second World War. But the post World War II witnessed the new phenomenon of vast fluctuations in money value of currency notes in circulation in each nation. When the U.S. Dollar has registered a steep upward rise, currencies in many other countries made downward slip. What was the value of one Hundred rupees twenty years ago is vastly different from what it is today. This substantial change has caused its impact on the cost of living also.

28......... what you were to pay ten years ago to one person cannot be the same if it is paid today in the same figure of currency notes. It is for the purpose of meeting the reality that Central Government changed the figures."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. Following Rathi Menon (supra), Andhra Pradesh High Court and Division Bench of Calcutta High Court have applied the amended schedule as on the date of adjudication in Union of India v. Aggala Dilleswara Rao, 2006 ACJ 1470; Pramath Kumar Jena v. Union of India, AIR 2012 Ori 32 and Radha Yadav v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 420 respectively.

16. It is well settled that the appeal is the continuation of the claim petition and the power of the Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir v. Sardar Gurpreet Singh, 2014 (10) SCC 702.

17. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rathi Menon (supra), this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lakh according Schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 (as on the date of this judgment).

18. The appeal is allowed and a compensation of Rs.8 lakh along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition filed before Railway Claims Tribunal is awarded to the appellant.

19. The respondent is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Rani Devi within a period of four weeks.

20. List for disbursement of the compensation amount on 13th October,

2017 at 2:30 P.M.

21. The appellant shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing along with passbook of her savings bank accounts near the place of her residence as well as PAN Card and Aadhaar Card.

22. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signatures of the Court Master.

SEPTEMBER 08, 2017                                   J.R. MIDHA, J.