The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO NO.451 OF 2018 An appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Dharitri Rath & Anr. :::: Appellants -:: VERSUS ::- Union of India :::: Respondent For Appellant :::: Mr. S.K. Pani, Advocate For Respondent :::: Mr. P.S. Nayak, Sr. Panel Counsel ……… PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing- 04.10.2024 :: Date of Judgment- 04.10.2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.P. Satapathy, J. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Pani, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging Judgment dtd.21.09.2018 so passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A. No. 59 of 2015. Page 1 of 7 // 2 // 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the claim application was filed due to the untoward death of the deceased in a rail accident occurred on 21.10.2014. It is contended that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in Durg-Puri Train No. 18426. While travelling in the said train, he accidentally fell down from the said train on Platform No. 1 at Titlagarh Railway Station. Because of that he was taken to SDH, Titilagarh, but the Doctor declared him dead. 4.1. It is contended that since the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he fell down from the running the train while boarding the train at Titilagarh Railway Station, such death of the deceased will come within the purview of the definition of untoward incident as prescribed under Sec.123(c)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989. It is contended that since the deceased died due to the accident as a bonafide passenger, Claimants-Appellants are entitled to get the compensation as provided under Sec. 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989. 4.2. It is contended that in support of the accident documents were filed and evidence was led, but the Tribunal only on the ground that the post-mortem report revealed the cause of death as cardiac arrest and having no external injury, declined to allow any compensation and dismissed the claim application vide the impugned Judgment dtd.21.09.2018. 4.3. It is contended that since it is not disputed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he fell down while trying to board the train at Titilagarh Railway Station, which amounts to an untoward incident within the purview of the provisions contained under Page 2 of 7 // 3 // Sec.123(c)(ii) of the Act, the Claimants-Appellants are entitled to get the benefit of compensation. It is accordingly contended that the impugned Judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. In support of his submission, reliance was placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 and decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in FAO No. 1988
Decision
of 2013 (Jasbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Union of India), disposed of on 23.03.2015. Hon’ble Apex court in Para 10, 11, 12 and 14 to 17 of the Judgment in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar has held as follows:- “10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any different 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. 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 Page 3 of 7 // 4 // should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 482] (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 193 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 131] (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. [(2000) 1 SCC 332 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 121] 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 vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1961 SC 647] (AIR para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority [(1984) 4 SCC 356 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 753 : AIR 1984 SC 1842] (AIR para 11), Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. [(1981) 2 SCC 238 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 316 : AIR 1981 SC 852] (AIR para 13), S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager [(2003) 4 SCC 27 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC para 12). 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 Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 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.” Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur has held as follows:- “Therefore, the definition made it clear that the accidental falling from any train carrying passengers is covered under the definition of „untoward incident‟. In Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger is defined as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation on account of untoward incident. xxx xxx xxx Normally, the railway ticket is kept in the front pocket of the shirt. Therefore, when the deceased fell down from the train and was run over by the train, the ticket might have fallen at the spot.” 5. Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent on the other hand contended that though it is not disputed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, but no ticket was recovered from his possession. It is also contended that since the deceased died while trying to board the train at Titilagarh station in a running condition, it will not come within the purview of Page 5 of 7 // 6 // untoward incident as provided under Sec.123(c)(ii) of the Act. It is also contended that since the post-mortem reveals the cause of death as cardiac arrest and there is no external injury, the claim application has been rightly rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in a train accident on 21.10.2014, the claim application was filed before the Tribunal. As found from the record the deceased died while trying to board the train at Titilagarh Station in a running condition and fell down. The deceased though was taken to the nearby hospital, but he was declared brought dead. Since the deceased died due to falling down from a train and the same has been brought to the notice of the Tribunal through examination of the witnesses, as per the considered view of this Court, the claim application could not have been rejected only on the ground that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest and having not sustained any physical injury. Not only that while falling down from the train, the ticket which is normally kept in the front pocket of the shirt, that might have fallen at the spot itself. Similarly, while falling down from the train, since the deceased was rescued, he might have suffered cardiac arrest, though having not sustained any bodily injury. 6.1. Therefore, this Court placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra) is inclined to quash Judgment dtd.21.03.2018 and remits the matter to the Tribunal to redecide the claim basing on the materials available on record and any further document that will be adduced by the Appellants-Claimants in support of their claim. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six (6) months Page 6 of 7 // 7 // from the date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 04th October, 2024/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:34:09 Page 7 of 7