Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Sabita Devi & Others vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 85 of 2015
........
Smt. Sabita Devi & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Union of India, through the General Manager,
East Central Railway, Hajipur. .... ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
........
11/01.02.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh
and learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that claimants
namely, Smt. Sabita Devi, Annapurna Kumari (Minor) and Bhabani
Kumari (Minor) have preferred this appeal against the award dated
20.10.2014 in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2012/0021 passed by learned
Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, whereby
though the deceased has been considered to be bonafide passenger as
having railway ticket no.50561427 (II S/F), but since the deceased died
due to accidental fall from the train, the learned Tribunal has considered it
to be a criminal negligence resulting in self inflicted injuries, which would
fall under the sub-clause (b) of proviso in Section 124-A of the Railways
Act, 1989 and learned claim Tribunal has completely overlooked the ratio
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v.
Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 for
considering the incident to be untoward incident as defined under Section
123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that the claim
application may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and
grant compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.4 lacs along with
interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
i.e. 26.04.2012 till the actual date of indemnifying the award or Rs.8 lacs
in view of the new amendment made in the Railways Accident and
Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which has been amended
in the year 2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2017 by enhancing the same from Rs.
4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- and in view of the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in
2019 (3) SCC 410, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph-
11 as under:-
"11. ...................... For instance, in case of a death in an
accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure
would be Rs 4,00,000. If, after applying reasonable rate of
interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs 8,00,000, which
was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be
entitled to Rs 8,00,000. If, however, the amount of original
compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs
8,00,000 the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess
of Rs 8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the
amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the
matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further
clarification or elaboration."
Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has
submitted that though the deceased was a bonafide passenger, but he died
because of his own criminal negligence and as such, learned Tribunal has
rightly dismissed the claim application of the applicants.
Learned counsel for the Railway has thus submitted that this Court
may not interfere with the impugned judgment, as the finding recorded by
learned Tribunal is based upon the materials available on record.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into fact
and circumstances of the case, so far the issue with regard to bonafide
passenger is concerned, this Court agree with the finding recorded by
learned Tribunal considering the deceased Babulal Saw, who was holding
a valid 2nd Class Super Fast ticket No.50561427 dated 22.11.2011, to be a
bonafide passenger.
Since the Babulal Saw boarded Train No.12307 (Howrah -Jodhpur
Express) at Howrah and arrived at Koderma on 23.11.2011 and was trying
to get down at Koderma Station, but his leg slipped and fell in the place
between the platform and train and thus he lost his life, as such, in view of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaran Vijay
Kumar & Others (Supra), as held at paras -10 and 14 are sufficient to
hold that it was an accidental fall and comes under the provision of
Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Paras-10 and 14 of the
aforesaid judgment are profitably quoted 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.
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."
Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed.
The Railway is directed to indemnify the compensation of Rs.
8,00,000/- or Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of
the claim application i.e. 26.04.2012 till the date of actual payment,
whichever is higher in favour of the claimants, in view of the new
amendment made in the Railways Accident and Untoward Incident
(Compensation) Rules, 1990, which has been amended in the year 2016
w.e.f. 01.01.2017 and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav (Supra).
The 50% of Award shall be paid to the wife and 25% of award each
to the daughters.
Let the L.C.R. be sent down to the court below forthwith.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
