AJIDA BEGUM v. THE UNION OF INDIA

Advocate for the Appellant : MR. I A TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date : 27.07.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms. B. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NF Railway.

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29/4/2022 passed in Claim Application No. OAIIu-18/2021 passed by the learned Member, (Technical), Page No.# 2/5 Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby the claim of the Applicant was rejected.

I have perused the impugned judgment dated 29/4/2022.

From the perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the case of the Appellant is that one Abed Ali (deceased) was having a UTS Ticket No.23479025 from New Delhi to Guwahati and he was a bona fide passenger. The said aspect of the matter is not disputed. It is the further case of the Appellant that the deceased died after having a cup of tea with snacks from the Railway vendor and after a few minutes due to uneasiness of his health immediately died within the train as informed by unknown co-passenger. Upon the said incident, the Government Railway Police had sent a message on 4/11/2019 to the Station Master, Allahabad “as per the information received from the staff of the Control Room, a person was found lying unconscious in Berth No. 45, Coach No. 53 of Train No. 12502 Purbottar Sampark Kranti Express.” The post mortem done on the deceased on 6/11/2019 identified the cause of the death as cardiac issue. The post mortem report also did not show that there was any external or internal injury. Further to that, the son of the deceased had applied to OC/GRP/Prayagraj for identification and handover of the dead body of his father, and in that application, it was mentioned about his father being ill. The words used in the said application was “ he was ill and died on the way.” Thereupon the application was filed by the wife of the deceased.

The Tribunal below after taking into account the provisions of Section 123 (c) (1) & (2) of the Railway Act, 1989(in short the Railway Act of 1989) and more particularly to the definition of “untoward incident” came to a finding that the incident in question does not come within the ambit of “untoward incident” and as such it is not a fit case to be tried by the Tribunal under the statute and accordingly dismissed the said case. It is under such circumstances that the instant appeal has been filed before this Court. Page No.# 3/5

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. I. A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was entitled to compensation on the basis of Section 124A of the Act of the Railway Act of 1989. He submits that only in the cases where the proviso to Section 124(A) is applicable, then the applicant or the appellant would not be entitled for compensation.

On the other hand, Ms. B. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway submits that a reading of Section 124A categorically shows that the compensation has to be paid on account of an “untoward incident”. She further submits that “untoward incident” has been duly defined in Section 123(c) of the Railway Act of 1989 and by no stretch of imagination, the case of the Appellant would come within the ambit of the “untoward incident” as defined in the said Act.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also upon perusal of the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court deems it proper to take note of Section 124A of the Act of 1989 which for the sake of convenience is quoted hereinbelow.:- “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 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.]” Page No.# 4/5

From the above quoted Section, it would be apparent that the said Section relates to compensation resulting on account of an untoward incident in the course of working of the Railway. The term “untoward incident” has been defined in Section 123 (c) of the Railway Act of 1989, which for the sake of convenience is quoted hereinbelow.:- “(c) “untoward incident” means-- (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub- Section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (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, cloak room or reservation or booking office or any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station.

2. the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.”

From a perusal of the said definition of the term “untoward incident”, it would show that the incident has to be in relation to the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the making of a violent attack or the commission of a robbery or dacoity, or the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in the waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station. Further to that, an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers would also come within the ambit of the term “untoward incident”. Page No.# 5/5