- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R. Geetha v. Union Of India, And Another
Summary of Judicial Opinion — Koshy, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
On 7-7-1991 the husband of the appellant, Lance Naik Raju, who was escorting a military consignment in a railway wagon, fell down while taking meals, sustained serious injuries and died of those injuries. The occurrence of the accident and death due to the injuries were not disputed. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim for compensation on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the passenger train. The appellant challenged that rejection by way of this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the deceased qualifies as a "passenger" under Section 124-A of the Railways Act for the purpose of claiming compensation for death in an untoward incident.
- Whether proof of negligence by the Railway administration is necessary to claim compensation under Section 124-A.
- What is the appropriate quantum of compensation payable — whether the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate prescribed by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 (Rs. 4,00,000) or at the earlier rate applicable at the time of the incident (Rs. 2,00,000) — and the applicable date from which interest should run.
Arguments of the Parties
Railway's Arguments
- The Railway Claims Tribunal's ground, as recorded in the opinion, was that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in a passenger train.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of other specific arguments advanced by the parties.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899) AC 99 | Interpretation principle that the word "include" in definition clauses is used to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute. | The court used this principle to support a broad construction of "passenger" under Section 124-A so as to encompass persons specified in the Explanation (e.g., persons with valid tickets or platform tickets) and to conclude the deceased could be treated as a passenger. |
| Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K Gupta., AIR 1994 SC 787 | Authority for the proposition that the observation on "include" (from Dilworth) was quoted with approval by the Apex Court. | The court relied on the Apex Court's approval to reinforce the inclusive construction of "passenger" under Section 124-A. |
| Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 459: (AIR 1999 SC 3378) | Support for interpreting beneficial legislation liberally to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. | The court invoked this authority to justify a liberal, beneficiary-favouring construction of Section 124-A so as to include the deceased within the class of persons entitled to compensation. |
| Rathi Menon v. Union Of India (2001)3 SCC 714: (AIR 2001 SC 1333) | Principle that compensation payable should be at the rate existing on the date of the final decision (taking account of erosion of value of money). | The court applied this principle to hold that compensation should be awarded at the rate prescribed by the 1997 amendment (Rs. 4,00,000) since the entitlement was being determined on final decision now. |
| N. Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 306: (AIR 2002 SC 1834) | Affirmation of the same principle as in Rathi Menon regarding award of compensation at rates prevailing on the date of final decision. | The court relied on this decision together with Rathi Menon to justify awarding compensation at Rs. 4,00,000 despite the incident having occurred when a lower rate applied. |
| Heydon's case (1584) 3 Rep. 7 a | Canon of statutory interpretation: suppressing the mischief and advancing the remedy (supporting liberal interpretation in favour of beneficiaries). | The court cited the principle to support a liberal and beneficiary-oriented construction of Section 124-A. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by quoting Section 124-A of the Railways Act (compensation on account of untoward incident) and observed that under that section:
- Liability to pay compensation arises when an untoward incident occurs in the course of working a railway, whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or default by the railway administration.
- Certain specific exemptions are listed in the proviso (suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act by the passenger, acts in a state of intoxication or insanity, natural causes/disease or medical treatment except where necessitated by the untoward incident). The Railway had no case that the incident fell under any of those proviso exemptions.
The court then analyzed the Explanation to Section 124-A, which provides an inclusive definition of "passenger" that expressly includes (i) a railway servant on duty, and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. The court applied the interpretive principle from Dilworth (as approved in Lucknow Development Authority) that the word "include" is used to enlarge the meaning of defined words, and concluded that the Explanation enlarges the ordinary meaning of "passenger" to bring within its scope persons identified therein.
On the facts, the court noted that the deceased was travelling in the wagon with duly authorized documents and was validly authorised to travel in the wagon with the military consignments. The Railway had no case that he was unauthorisedly travelling. On that basis the court concluded that the deceased must be treated as a "passenger" within Section 124-A.
Addressing quantum, the court noted that the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 prescribe Rs. 4,00,000 for death. Although at the time of the incident (7-7-1991) the compensation in the 1990 Rules was Rs. 2,00,000, the court followed the Supreme Court decisions in Rathi Menon and N. Parameswaran Pillai which held that compensation should be awarded at the rate prevailing on the date of the final decision, taking account of erosion of value of money. Applying those authorities, the court held the appellant is entitled to Rs. 4,00,000. Because the award was made on the basis of the amended provisions, the court directed that interest at 6% would be payable only from the date of the final decision until payment.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 (four lakhs) for the death of her husband, with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of this final decision until payment.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The appellant's claim is allowed and she is to receive Rs. 4,00,000 with interest at 6% from the date of this decision.
- The court applied established interpretive authorities to construe "passenger" inclusively under Section 124-A and followed Supreme Court precedents on the applicable rate of compensation (award at rates prevailing on the date of final decision). The opinion does not announce a new legal principle beyond these applications.
Koshy, J.:— On 7-7-1991, the husband of the appellant Lance Naik Raju, who was escorting the military consignment in a railway wagon, fell down while taking meals. As a result of the incident, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injures. Occurrence of the accident, death due to the injuries sustained in the incident, etc. were not disputed. However, her claim for compensation was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal only on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the passenger train. Hence this appeal.
2. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with compensation on account of untoward incident. Section 124-A is quoted as follows:
“124-A. 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;
(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.”
To claim compensation under Section 124-A, it is not necessary that negligence on the part of the Railway should be proved. In the proviso certain specific exemptions are given. But Railway has no case that the accident occurred due to the incidents specified in the proviso.
3. The definition given to the “passenger” is an inclusive definition. It will even include a person with a valid platform ticket. Merely because it also includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling in a train carrying passengers, it cannot be stated that the deceased was not a passenger. The word ‘include’ is used to enlarge the meaning of the word comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their natural, import, but also those things which the definition clause declares that they shall include as held in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899) AC 99. In that decision Lord Watson observed as follows:
“Include is very generally used (in) interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute, and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural, import, but also those things which the definition clause declares that they shall include.”
The above observation was quoted with approval by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K Gupta., AIR 1994 SC 787. Definition of the term ‘passenger’ is not given in the explanation and expression ‘means and includes’ is not used but only stated that the word ‘passenger’ includes over and above persons who are coming under the normal meaning of the term, some others like persons who have purchased tickets but not boarded the train and persons who are in possession of platform ticket etc. The deceased was travelling in the wagon with duly authorized documents. He was validly authorised to travel in the wagon with the military consignments. Railway has no case that he was unauthorisedly travelling in the wagon. Since his was travelling authorisedly with valid documents, he is to be treated as a passenger. This is a beneficial piece of legislation and it is to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries, if such a view is possible, taking a liberal view to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy as held in the well known Heydon's case (1584) 3 Rep. 7 a, referred to in Maxwell on Interpretation of statutes, S. 12th Edition at page 96. Apex Court also held so in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 459: (AIR 1999 SC 3378).
4. Then the question is what is the compensation to be granted for the death of the husband of the appellant. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 provides that for death, compensation payable is Rs. 4,00,000/-. It is true that at the time of incident on 7-7-1991, compensation payable was only Rs. 2 lakhs as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The Supreme Court in Rathi Menon v. Union Of India (2001)3 SCC 714: (AIR 2001 SC 1333) as well as in N. Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 306: (AIR 2002 SC 1834) clearly held that compensation payable will be at the rate as existing on the date of the final decision, considering the erosion of value of money etc. In view of the above Apex Court decisions, the appellant will be entitled to Rs. 4 lakhs as her entitlement is decided only now. However, since we are granting Rs. 4 lakhs on the basis of the amended provisions, interest at the rate of 6% will be payable only from today, the date of final decision, till the date of payment.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Appeal allowed.
Alert