Ramdhan v. Union Of India

A.B Chaudhari, J.:— This is an appeal preferred by the appellants-claimants against judgment and order dated 24-9-2004 passed in Claim Application No. 77.OA-II/RCT/NGP/2003, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the applicants-claimants in entirety.

2. Mr. Bambal, learned Counsel for the appellants, in support of appeal, made following submissions:

(i) The Tribunal has erred in holding that the applicants who are father and mother of deceased Gokul Jadhav are not the ‘dependents’ for claiming compensation.

(ii) The Tribunal further committed an error in holding that deceased Gokul Jadhav was not bona fide passenger when there was enough evidence on record. The Tribunal further erred in holding that the deceased was negligent by standing at the door of the local train and that therefore he had indulged in rash and negligent act which deprives the claimants from making any claim for compensation. Finally, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

3. Per contra, Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that there was no material on record to come to a conclusion that deceased Gokul Jadhav was bona fide passenger and the burden of proof to prove that he was bona fide passenger was not discharged by the claimants.

4. The deceased was in fact knocked down by engine of the train while crossing the railway track, and therefore, for such an act compensation is not payable under the proviso to section 124-A of the Railways Act.

5. The Tribunal has rightly found that the respondent-claimants did not lead satisfactory evidence that they were dependents of deceased Gokul Jadhav. The documents filed by the claimants were xerox copies, and therefore, were not admissible in evidence, and therefore, no interference with the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal can be made. Finally, learned Counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties at length and I have also gone through the impugned judgment and order. At the outset I find that finding recorded by the Tribunal that the applicants are not dependents though they are his father and mother is absurd. The fact that they were mother and father was proved by way of affidavit-evidence and the xerox copy of ration card issued by Tahsildar showing their names. It was not the case of the respondents-railways that those documents were forged. In absence of any specific challenge by the respondents by way of evidence or otherwise to the said Government document namely; ration card issued by Tahsildar, Umarkhed and the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Kurli, that applicants are father and mother of the deceased, I have hardly any reason to disbelieve that the claimants are the parents or the mother and father of deceased Gokul Jadhav. The said finding on Issue No. 1 being perverse, is therefore, set aside.

7. The finding that Gokul Jadhav was not bona fide passenger is again perverse. As a matter of fact, AW-2 Sudam was examined on behalf of claimants whose testimony was hardly shaken by the respondents in the cross-examination and on the contrary in the cross-examination it was brought out that he personally saw deceased Gokul buying railway ticket from the counter. The respondents, however, did not lead any evidence. The documents of inquest panchanama, A.D report and post-mortem report clearly indicate that deceased Gokul fell from the train and received injuries. Therefore, merely because railway ticket was not found of the person of deceased Gokul, the Tribunal could not have jumped to a conclusion that he was not a bona fide passenger. It is noteworthy that the Tribunal has quoted that part of evidence of AW-2 that AW-2 had personally seen deceased Gokul buying the ticket from railway counter. But, still the Tribunal answered Issued No. 2 against the respondents-claimants.

8. It was the case of the respondents-railways that deceased Gokul was crossing the railway track and was knocked down by the engine. But, then no evidence was at all produced by the respondents to that effect. None prevented the respondents-railways from proving the said defence by leading appropriate evidence. The evidence of AW-2 has not been shattered in the cross-examination and on the contrary, he denied the suggestions which were given to him by the respondents-railways. I quote the following portion from paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment;

“…Though the respondent-railways have filed along with their W.S Exh. R-1 i.e the Memo of Guard of a local train K 23 on 29-3-2002 to the effect that deceased Gokul was knocked down by the local train at KM 41/05 near Diva Railway Station, yet they did not lead any evidence. The applicants have in their pleadings as also in deposition of AW-1 and AW-2 have categorically come on record to state that deceased Gokul Jadhav was standing at the door of the Local train while travelling on 29-3-2002 in a slow local train which position is well admitted by the applicants themselves….”

9. Despite quoting the above evidence, the Tribunal held that there was no untoward incident. Surprisingly enough the Tribunal has referred to the scheme of the Act and stated in the impugned order and in particular para 9 that, Railway Administration has fixed the maximum number of passengers, which may be carried by it and that the numbers so fixed are exhibited in a conspicuous manner inside and outside of railway compartment and still the Applicant did not bother to observe the same and made his entry in the compartment knowingly well that there was heavy rush. I quote the said portion of paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment which reads:

“It is crystal clear that for each compartment of every description of carriage the Railway Administration has fixed the maximum number of passengers, which may be carried by it and that the numbers so fixed are exhibited in a conspicuous manner inside or outside, but, in spite of that the Applicant did not bother to observe the same and made his entry in the compartment knowingly well that there was heavy rush…..”

10. To my mind, the above finding recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal which consists of judicial and technical members, is ridiculous and does not show any regard to the fact that in the local railway train in Mumbai, people are required to travel and board the train despite heavy rush. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken into consideration several factors including the above and it would be profitable to quote para Nos. 8 to 12, 14 and 17 of judgment in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 which read thus:

“8. However, the evidence of D. Sajja, DW 1, who was the Stationmaster at the railway station corroborates the evidence of PW 2. DW 1 had deposed that he saw one girl running towards the train and trying to enter the train and she fell down. He has further stated that the deceased Abja had attempted to board the train and fell down from the running train. For this reason, the Tribunal held that this was not an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of the expression in section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989, as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.

9. In appeal, Kerala High Court was of the view that the deceased sustained injuries, even according to the respondents, in her anxiety to get into the train which was moving. Hence, the High Court held that the deceased came within the expression ‘accident falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ which is an ‘untoward incident’, as defined in section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

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 tryins to set 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 above mentioned two interpretations, i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B.D Shetty v. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12); Transport Corporation of India v. E.S.I Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332; etc.

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, the 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 (para 7); Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, (1984) 4 SCC 356 : AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11); Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., (1981) 2 SCC 238 : AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13); S.M Nilakjar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12); etc.

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 setting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by the 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 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-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.”

11. In the result, I pass the following order:

(i) Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

(ii) Impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside.

12. The respondents-railways shall pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lac only) to the appellants with interest thereon @ Rs. 6% per annum sffective from 24-9-2004 i.e the date of impugned judgment and award.

Appeal allowed.