Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Union Of India vs Bhuribhai Ter Singh Bhai Gudia on 30 May, 2024
1
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 30th Of May, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2848 of 2005
Between:-
The Union of India through General Manger
Western Railway Churchgate Mumbai
(Maharashtra)
.....Appellant
(By Shri Sandeep Shukla - Advocate)
AND
1. Bhuribhai Tersinghbhai Gudia
2. Sangitaben Bhurubhai Gudia
Both R/o Pitol Teh. Jhabua (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Deepak B. Shah - Advocate)
Reserved on : 14.05.2024
Pronounced on : 30.05.2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed Under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Act"), the impugned judgment
and order dated 13.05.2005 of Railway Claims Tribunal by which the learned
Tribunal awarded compensation a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to each applicant
with interest @ 6 % from the date of the order till the date of realisation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties referred to as they are arrayed
before the RCT.
3. Briefly stated facts of this case are that the wife and daughter of the
first appellant was travelling from Bhawani Mandi to Meghnagar railway
station by Mathura-Ratlam passenger train leaving at 16:30 hours reaching
Ratlam at 22:30 hours. Halting at Ratlam for a night, while so on 24.06.1997,
they boarded 82 up Ratlam-Dahod Memu at 08.15 hours for Meghnagar
arrived at 09:30 am. They tried to detrain from the compartment, but there
being heavy rush by the time, they reached near the door and tried to get
down, the train started, pushing off by co-passengers, they fell down from the
running train on platform no.2 and sustained severe injuries and died on the
spot. They were traveling with a valid second class ticket kept in a purse
which was lost at the time of incident, thus, they are the bonafide passengers
and the incident covered as an "untoward incident" under section 124-A r/w
section 123(c)(2) of the Act.
4. That, the first claimant is the husband of the deceased-Jogadibhen and
second claimant is minor daughter represented by her father (guardian), they
filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
5. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement and resisted the
claim, denied the occurrence of an "untoward incident" and they were not the
bonafide passengers on the date of alleged incident, further denied that the
alleged incident does not come within the definition of an "untoward
incident" as defined in Section 123(c)(2) r/w section 124-A of the Railways
Act, the claim has to be dismissed.
6. In view of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues :
1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased
Jogadiben Bhurabai Gudia ?
2. Whether the applicant is entitled for condonation of delay in
filing the claim application ?
3. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train
Memu No.82 travelling from Bhawani Mandi Railway
Station to Meghnagar on 24.06.1997 ?
4. Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident
of accidental falling from train at Meghnagar Railway
Station ?
5. To what relief ?
7. In order to establish their claim at the time of inquiry, the first
applicant-Bhurubhai filed an affidavit and he was cross-examined, in support
of evidence and filed documents i.e. Ration Card, First Information Report,
Panchanama, postmortem report and memorandum of postmortem
examination dated 24.06.1997, no evidence led by the Railway-respondent
and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent-Railways.
8. On appreciation of evidence of first appellant and placing reliance of
above referred documents, the learned Claims Tribunal came to a conclusion
that the deceased-Jogadibhen along with minor daughter boarded a train 56
UP Mathura-Ratlam passenger on 23.06.1997 that the deceased had fallen
from the train while detraining and died. Also in the absence of any evidence
of death having occurred due to any of the five reasons stated in proviso
(a) to (e) of 124-A of the Railways Act, the learned Tribunal hold that the
appellant along with the minor daughter entitled for compensation under the
Act for death arising out of an "untoward incident"
9. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by learned Tribunal, the appellant-Railways herein preferred the
present appeal seeking to set aside the judgment dated 13.05.2005 passed by
the learned Claims Tribunal in O.A.No170/2000.
10. After admitted the appeal, this Court call for the record through
Registry, the Additional Registrar of Railways Claims Tribunal vide Memo
dated 04.12.2015 informed that the relevant record of O.A.No.170/2000 has
been destroyed as per Rule 43 of the Railways Claims Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules, 1989, therefore, they are unable to send the above record to the Court.
11. The present miscellaneous appeal is being disposed off as per the
material available on record and judgment dated 13.05.2005. Both the
counsels conceded to dispose off the appeal on merits.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant-Railway submitted that the
learned Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased had fallen down from the
train suffered grievous injury and covered under untoward incident without
any corroborative evidence. Further would submit that the learned Claims
Tribunal decided that the deceased persons were the bonafide passengers in
the absence of valid journey ticket. Further would submit that the learned
Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition but awarded
compensation in contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court. Further submit
that the findings of the learned Tribunal is not tenable and erroneous and
liable to be set-aside and pray to allow the appeal.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant opposed the
appeal and submitted that the evidence led by the claimant clearly suggests
that the accident covered within the definition of an "untoward incident". The
learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion
that the deceased persons were the bonafide passengers and awarded
compensation. Further would submit that the finding fact cannot be
reappreciated by this Court, thus no relief can to be granted to the
appellant/Railways. Further would submit that there is no infirmity or
illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal needs no
interference of this Court, in view of the said findings the appeal filed by the
Railways is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the light of the above arguments, the points for determination is :-
"Whether there is any merits in the appeal to set aside
the judgment dated 13.05.2005 passed by the Claims
Tribunal ?"
16. In order to assess the sustainability of the said finding, it is necessary to
refer to Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1968, which set out the liability of
Railway Administration for death or injury caused to the passengers due to
accidents.
"Accident" is defined as an accident of the nature described in Section
124 of the Act. 'Untoward incident' is another term which is defined in the
said chapter and it include the accidental falling of any passenger from any
train, carrying passengers.
Section 124 determine the extent liability of the Railway
Administration, when in the course of working of the railway, an accident
occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying
passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a
train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful
act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would
entitle a passenger who has been injured or who has suffered a loss to
maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway
administration shall, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be
prescribed. Section 124-A provide for compensation on account of an
untoward incident and since the claim of the applicant revolve around the
aspect whether the incident causing injuries to the applicant, is an untoward
incident, which would make the applicant entitle for compensation, I must
turn to the said Section."
Section 124A reads thus :-
"Section 124A - Compensation on account of untoward incident.--
When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then
whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part
of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been
injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an
action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay
compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for
loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such
untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by
the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such
treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward
incident.
Explanation: - For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes : -
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying
passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an
untoward incident.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes -
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who had purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying
passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an
untoward incident"
17. Section 125 prescribe for the Application for compensation before the
Claims Tribunal either under Section 124 or Section 124-A, by a person who
has sustained an injury or suffered any loss and several other contingencies
provided therein.
18. The manner in which the accident is caused that the deceased persons
were standing at the door in compartment when they getting down from the
train at Meghnagar, there is one minute halt, the co-passenger pushed them,
by that time the train started unexpectedly, they fell down from the train and
sustained severe injuries and died on the spot, therefore, they were treated to
be bonafide passengers and the incident covered under section 124-A r/w
123(c)(2) of the Railway Act.
19. A decision where the terms as received a wider interpretation at the
hands of Hon'ble Apex Court of Union of India Vs. Prabhakar
Vijayakumar, 1
1. 2008 ACJ 1985
"while considering the definition of "untoward incident" with respect
to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers" in section 123(c) of the Act of 1989, has observed that if we
attach a restrictive meaning to the said expression, we will be depriving a
large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway
accident and, therefore, a purposive and not literal interpretation should be
given to the said expression. Paragraph-11, 12 and 14 of the said decision is
usually quoted as under:-
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.......
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.......... S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt.
Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27(para 12) etc.
"The terms accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers" received a wider interpretation from the
Apex Court and it was so set out in the following words :-
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 traveling 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 traveling 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.
20. Here is a case where the applicant specifically deposed before the
learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased were boarded from Bhawani Mandi
to Meghnagar by a train 82 UP when the train reached near Meghnagar they
tried to get down, there was heavy crowd in the compartment and pushed off
by co-passenger on their back, the train started unexpectedly and they fell
down from the running train and sustained injuries and died on the spot.
Therefore, the case would clearly fall within the situation covered by an
"untoward incident".
21. On perusal of the judgment, the learned Tribunal gave a finding that the
deceased persons had fallen down from the train carrying passengers while
detrain and died, the deaths having occurred not due to any of the five reasons
stated in the proviso of section 124-A of the Act, therefore, the claimants are
entitled for compensation under the Act for the death arising out of an
"untoward incident".
22. The appellant-railway took a plea in the appeal that the Railway Claims
Tribunal erred to decide that the deceased persons were the bonafide
passengres in the absence of valid journey ticket and instead of holding that
the deceased persons were not bonafide passengers and the incident not
covered under "untoward incident".
23. A decision reported in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi 2 ,
para-29 is concluded as thus :
"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway
premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a
bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be
maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or
deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.
Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an
affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways
and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending
circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the
basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained
accordingly.
24. In view of the said legal position, on the basis of pleadings and the
material placed on record before the learned Claims Tribunal, the finding of
Claims Tribunal do not suffer from any factual infirmity, inconsistency or
legal infirmity so as to warrant the Appellate Court to interfere therewith, or
any question of fact, or finding, or law and the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal and all the issues, framed by it as correct and sustainable,
both, at fact and law.
25. By virtue of the above provisions stated (supra), mere absence of ticket
with such injured or deceased persons will not negative the claim that they
were bonafide passengers, initial burden will be on the claimants which can
be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then
shift on the Railways, in such circumstances, the deceased persons were
bonafide passengers of the train and had fallen from the running train which
comes under the definition of an "untoward incident" as contained in section
2. (2019) 3 SCC 572
123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act. The Railway has
failed to examine any of its witnesses to establish the fact that the deceased
persons were travelling without ticket and since the deceased persons had
boarded the train, the presumption would be that they had valid authority to
travel, therefore, the learned Tribunal, was justified in holding that the
deceased persons were bonafide passengers and the incident covered by
"untoward incident" as stated in the judgment at page-4 para-3.
26. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer a decision rendered by a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Satish Patidar3;
wherein it is held :
"27. This brings us to point No. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants
contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the
claimants could not establish that he purchased the ticket. The burden to
prove that the deceased had a valid ticket during his journey which he
proceeded cannot be placed on dependents. Obviously, such burden of
proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependents who can have no
means of knowledge whether the deceased before boarding the train had
purchased the valid ticket. It is likely that such a deceased passenger had
a valid ticket but the same was lost in accident. To place the onus of proof
dependents would amount to denial of the benefit of legislation to them
for reasons beyond their control. In the case before us, the presumption
has to be drawn that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore,
we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger.
27. Another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court Kalandi Charan Sahoo v.
South-East Central Railways4, relevant para-5 concluded as thus:
............ we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to
whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down.
The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the
provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants
payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs whether
or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or
default on the part of the Railway Administration. Going by the aforesaid
3. 2003(4)M.P.L.J. 306
4. (2019)12 SCC 387
provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as
mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had
occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to
compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
28. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the facts of this case
appreciated by the learned Claims Tribunal with a reasoned order that the
deceased persons were bonafide passengers and the incident covers under
"untoward incident", when the case of the deceased persons are not coming
within the enumerated reasons under clauses (a) to (e) of section 124-A of the
Act, the case of the deceased persons are coming within the main body of
section 124-A of the Railways Act and the claimants are entitled for
compensation. In that view of the matter, the court comes to a conclusion that
the appellants are entitled for compensation under section 124-A of the said
Act and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each of the applicants.
29. Under these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the learned
Tribunal has committed no error so as to invite interference by this Court, and
the judgment impugned does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and
accordingly, this appeal is, therefore, lack of merits and dismissed by
confirming the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2005 passed by Railway
Claims Tribunal in Case No.O.A.170/2000.
i. The respondent/Railway Administration shall deposit the
compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the
date of this order in terms of the award passed by the learned
Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.
ii. The rest of the directions given by the learned Tribunal with
regard to the entitlement of the claimant in withdrawing the
amount shall remain unaltered.
iii. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for
consideration, if any, shall stands closed.
(DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE
rk
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
ON THE 30th OF MAY, 2024
Between:-
The Union of India through General Manger
Western Railway Churchgate Mumbai
(Maharashtra)
.....Appellant
(By Shri Sandeep Shukla - Advocate)
AND
1. Bhuribhai Tersinghbhai Gudia
2. Sangitaben Bhurubhai Gudia
Both R/o Pitol Teh. Jhabua (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Deepak B. Shah - Advocate)
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 30.05.2024.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment ? Yes/No
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
rk
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
ON THE 30th OF MAY, 2024
Between:-
The Union of India through General Manger
Western Railway Churchgate Mumbai
(Maharashtra)
.....Appellant
AND
1. Bhuribhai Tersinghbhai Gudia
2. Sangitaben Bhurubhai Gudia
Both R/o Pitol Teh. Jhabua (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
By Shri Deepak B. Shah - Advocate)
Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024
Counsel for the Appellant : Shri Sandeep Shukla, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent : Shri Deepak B. Shah, Advocate.
> Gist :
< Head Note:
? Cases Referred
2008 ACJ 1985
(2019) 3 SCC 572
2003 (4) MPLJ 306
(2019) 12 SCC 387.
Date: 2024.05.31 16:37:13 +05'30'
