Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
RESHMA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advs.
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Pinky Pawar and Mr. Aakash P., Advs.
1. The present appeal is filed in terms of Section 23 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987[2] assailing the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi[3], in claim application bearing No. OA (IIu) No. 306/2017 (hereinafter referred to as the „claim application‟) under section 16 of the learned RCT Act, titled „Smt. Resham & Ors. Vs. Union of India‟, whereby the learned RCT dismissed the claim application of the applicants (appellants herein).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. To put it briefly, the appellants before this Court are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Nitin Kumar, consisting of his wife, minor Written submissions filed by appellants on 21.11.2023. No written submissions filed on behalf of respondent. RCT Act son and dependent parents. It is their case that the deceased was a daily passenger having a valid MST[4] No. 15703626 valid from 19.08.2017 to 18.09.2017. On the fateful day of the accident, i.e., 16.09.2017, the deceased was travelling from Ghaziabad to Okhla by train for his duty at Intex Phone Service Centre, and when the train reached at Platform No.3, Tilak Bridge Railway Station, New Delhi, he accidently fell down from the moving train and sustained serious/ grievous injuries all over his body leading to his death. Post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased vide PMR No.823/2017 at Maulana Azad Medical College & Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi wherein opinion was expressed that the injuries were possibly sustained in a railway accident. This sequence of events led to the filing of the claim application by appellant/applicant under Section 16(1) read with Section 13 (1-A) of The RCT Act, and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
3. Respondent Railways contested the claim application and relying upon the DRM Report, it was stated that the deceased was not a „bonafide passenger‟ of the train and that the incident occurred due to negligent and careless act on the part of the deceased, as he trying to de-board from a moving train.
4. The Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:
5. Perusal of the record shows that the learned RCT vide order dated 07.06.2018, closed the evidence of the claimant/wife of the deceased observing that she was not an eye witness and marked the entire documents placed on the record as A-1 to A-23 as the same were admitted. No evidence was led by the respondent either. However, the learned RCT called upon the claimants to demonstrate how the MST was valid to travel on Lucknow Mail assuming that it was a superfast train, and no information was sought from the respondent Railways. Eventually, learned RCT vide impugned order dated 17.09.2018 held that although the deceased had died in an „untoward incident‟ sustaining injuries on falling out of a moving Lucknow Mail Express Train, it was held that MST was valid for “to and fro” journey from Ghaziabad and Okhla via Old Delhi form 19.08.2017 to 18.09.2017 for a distance of 34 kms; and that the MST holders were permitted to travel only in EMU[5], DEMU[6] or slow moving conventional passenger trains. The learned RCT held that the deceased was not travelling as per the specific route allowed by the MST and rather took his journey on a superfast train, which was not allowed coupled with the fact that the deceased boarded a train which runs from Ghaziabad to New Delhi via Anand Vihar. Hence, issue Electric Multiple Unit Nos. 1 and 2 were held against the claimants. In the end, although claimants were held to be legal heirs of the deceased, the claim application was dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record as also written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, I find that there are serious questions marks over the legality of the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the learned RCT.
7. It would be expedient to extract relevant observations of the learned RCT in arriving at the aforesaid decisions vide issues No. 1 and 2, which reads as under:
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloakroom or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 16.09.2017 by ASI Kuldeep Singh PS NDRS that he recorded statement of one Pawan Kumar, running Tea Stall no. 2 at platform No. 3 & 4 who informed that at about 8:30 am in the morning when Lucknow Mail was passing through the platform no. 3 at Tilak Bridge, New Delhi, he saw, and quoting his own words in Hindi language “धीरे धीरे चल रही थी उसी समय मैंने ट्रेन के पीछे की ओर लगी जनरल बोगी से एक आदमी अचानक गगर गया”. Simple English translation of the above sentence is that when the train was passing through at slow speed, one person/passenger suddenly fell out from the General Compartment attached in the rear of the train.
10. It is also brought out from the passenger chart (annexed as „Annexure-A‟ with the main appeal) that as per the third column, second class UTS ticket holder were permitted to travel from „Ex Hapur to New Delhi and back‟ and it is borne out from the record that the deceased had boarded the train from Gaziabad station, which is located on way from Hapur to Delhi. The first column of the chart then restricted first class season ticket holders from travelling between Lucknow to New Delhi on such train. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned RCT that second class MST holders were not permitted to travel on Lucknow Mail in the general compartments attached to it, is patently erroneous and unsustainable.
11. The aforesaid disposition is clearly substantiated on a bare perusal of the above referred tabular information relied upon by the learned RCT in the impugned order. Although the third column provided “no exception” to the first class season ticket holders to travel from Lucknow to New Delhi, it is silent as to how 2nd season ticket holder shall be treated for a journey less than 200 kms. In the said scenario, the findings recorded by the learned RCT that the deceased had not taken the prescribed route in the MST to go to Ghaziabad via Old Delhi Junction falls into oblivion since there is nothing to discern that the passengers could not have taken a different route from New Delhi via Anand Vihar to reach Ghaziabad. What belies common sense is how in the world the train could cover distance „to and fro‟ Ghaziabad to Okhla via old Delhi Railway junction. The MST imprints “Gaziabad Jn & Okhla” via DLJ. It would obviously imply a train journey commencing from Old Delhi Railway Station to Ghaziabad in State of Uttar Pradesh via/through Okhla in south East of Delhi, and likewise back to Old Delhi Railway junction following the same route. Interestingly, the conditions in the MST are capable of more than one interpretation. For instance, it could mean journey from Old Delhi Railway Station/Junction to Ghaziabad via Okhla and back. It could also mean journey from Ghaziabad via Anand Vihar Railway Station and New Delhi Railway Station and then onwards to Old Delhi Railway Station, provided distance of more than 34 kms is not covered. Whatever be the way out, in case of two interpretation as to the route structured by the respondent Railways, the interpretation that is in favour the victim/passenger should be accepted, rather than the other way around. Be that as it may, there is no iota of evidence led that the rail fare for such diversion, if assumed to be so for the sake of convenience, was higher than what was otherwise provided or stipulated for the valid use of MST. Further, there is no iota of material to raise an inference that the deceased followed a route covering a distance of more than 34 kms as conditioned in the MST.
12. Lastly, the finding recorded by the learned RCT that the deceased was probably trying to de-board a running train at Tilak Bridge in order to catch a train to Ghaziabad via Okhla is a blind surmise or conjecture since no evidence was led by the respondent Railways to that effect. At the cost of repetition, the narrative of the aforesaid DD No. 34A recorded soon after the incident tells its own tale. All said and done, it is now well settled that there is no concept of „contributory negligence‟ in railway accident compensation matters and it is well ordained in law that Section 124A[9] of the Railways Act lays down “strict liability” or “no fault liability” in case of railway accidents. Reference in this regard can be invited to decision in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar10, wherein it was held as under:
9 Section 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.-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 dependant 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.
“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 Le 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 he 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.
17. Section 124-4 lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of raihray accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-4 it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault
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 total misconception and hence has to be rejected.” (Emphasis Supplied)
13. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated in a plethora of subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court and reference can also be invited to a decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi11 wherein it was held:
14. Furthermore, the plea as to the deceased passenger following a different route than what was prescribed by the MST, came for consideration in another case decided by High Court of Andhra Pradesh titled as K. Vidya Kumari and Others v. Union of India, South Central Railway12, wherein it was observed as under: "7. …The explanation contained in Section 124A of the Railways Act. clearly contemplates that a person who purchase a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or possess a valid platform ticket, and if he becomes a victim of an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation. The section does not further clarity that the passenger must possess the valid ticket of the same train from when he had an accidental fall. The fact that even a platform ticket holders also entitled for compensation, itself is a clear indication that any person who is having a valid railway ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date and becomes a victim of an untoward incident He is entitled for compensation'. Even Karnataka High Court in Smt. Vinodamma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. reported in II (2012) ACC 431 AIR 20010 Karnataka 174 has made the same observations".
15. This Court finds no persuasive reasons to differ from the dictum laid down by learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Reference can also be invited to a decision of our own High Court in the case of Hemlata & Ors. v. Union of India13, where it was held as under-