Bhola Singh vs Union of India And Ors

Heard, learned counsel of the appellant, Mr. Atanu Banerjee and learned counsel for the Railways, Mr. Gautam Rakesh.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment / award dated 11.03.2016 passed by

learned Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2015/0043, whereby the claim application for

compensation to appellant on account of injury suffered by him on 20.03.2013 has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal has been preferred by the claimant injured for compensation of the Rs.20 lacs on

account of injury suffered by him on 20.03.2013 at Bhusawal railway station while going from Platform No.6 to Platform No. 8 through railway track.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant - Bhola Singh was travelling from Dadar to Jasidih. As there was no direct train from

Dadar to Jasidih, therefore, he travelled from Dadar to Bhusawal in order to travel further to Jasidih from Bhusawal. The claimant reached Bhusawal

and was waiting for Bhusawal Jasidih train at Platform No. 6 of Bhusawal station. At about 9.00 A.M. on 20.03.2013, he saw a train on Platform No.

8, without giving thought, he got down from Platform No.6 and walked through track to reach Platform No.8 and because of ill luck, he was knocked

down by Surat Bhusawal Passenger Train No.59013 and as such, the claimant / appellant, who was a bonafide passenger having ticket has wrongly

been denied compensation as the incident was an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred the judgment of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527.

Para-47 of the aforesaid judgment is profitably quoted hereunder:-

However, apart from the principle of strict liability in Section 124-A of the Railways Act and other statutes, we can and should develop the law of

strict liability dehors statutory provisions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in M.C. Mehta case [(1987) 1 SCC 395]. In our

opinion, we have to develop new principles for fixing liability in cases like the present one.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3

SCC 572 , Para-25 of the aforesaid judgment is profitably quoted hereunder:

We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of 'self inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere

negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of

liability based on 'no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar laying

down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault theory' under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the

compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a beneficial legislation and as such, the appeal may be

allowed and the injured may be compensated accordingly.

Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh, has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the incident is neither an untoward

incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act nor an accident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that admitted case of the party is that injured Bhola Singh was travelling from Dadar to Jasidih, but

there is no direct train, as such, he got down at Bhusawal Railway Station. At Bhusawal, he has completely neglected the railway instruction to not to

cross railway track, rather acted as a trespasser, who was liable to be prosecuted under Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989, which is profitably

quoted hereunder:-

Trespass and refusal to desist from trespass.--

(1) If any person enters upon or into any part of a railway without lawful authority, or having lawfully entered upon or into such part misuses such

property or refuses to leave, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to

one thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the

court, such punishment shall not be less than a fine of five hundred rupees.

(2) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) may be removed from the railway by any railway servant or by any other person whom such railway

servant may call to his aid.

Learned counsel for the Railways has further submitted that the deceased was crossing from Platform No. 6 to Platform No. 7 and no evidence has

been brought on record by the appellant to show that his connecting train from Bhusawal to Jasidih was on track no.8 nor the appellant has brought on

record any material to suggest that there was no foot over bridge to come from Platform No.6 to Platform No. 8, as such, the learned Tribunal has

rightly held that the incident was not an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, rather it was own negligent on

part of the injured appellant and as such, he is not entitled for any compensation under Section 124 (A) of the Railways Amended Act, 1994.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that claimant / appellant had not to board on Surat Bhusawal passenger train, which never goes to

Jasidih, rather he was knocked down by Surat Bhusawal passenger train, which was coming on track No.7 and the injured appellant committed a

negligence where he cannot be compensated, rather he can be prosecuted for it, though the railway has not prosecuted him because of different

reasons, but atleast a person cannot claim compensation for his own fault, which cannot be justified in legal sense.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 147 of the Railways Act will not be applied nor any prosecution under Section 147 of the

Railways Act has been initiated.

Learned counsel for the Railway has submitted that the appellant has sustained injuries because of his own fault. The fact of this case will not cover

the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (Supra) and Rina Devi (Supra), rather under the provisions of the act, the

appellant being offender was liable to be prosecuted under different provisions of law, but not initiating a prosecution will not entitle an offender to

seek a compensation under the law, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same and dismiss the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied that this case will not cover Section 146 of the Railways Act as submitted by learned counsel for the

Railway and the appellant suffered permanent disability because of the incident, as such, he may be compensated under the benevolent legislation.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the railway and on perusal of materials brought on record, it appears that

though appellant / claimant has suffered permanent disability because an accident, but railway cannot be held liable to compensate on sympathetical

ground, rather each compensation case has to be considered by the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case though Bhola Singh

appellant had a ticket from Dadar to Jasidih, he was bonafide passenger when he was on Platform No.6 of Bhusawal Railway Station while he was

waiting for his train from Bhusawal to Jasidih, but Bhola Singh himself crossed the railway track without any reason neither it has been pleaded by the

appellant that connecting train from Bhusawal to Jasidih was coming on Platform No. 8 nor it is case of appellant that no intimation was given at

appropriate time nor it is a case that there is no foot over bridge, rather it appears that Bhola Sing himself was negligently crossing railway track from

Platform No. 6 to Platform No. 7 when he was knocked by Surat Bhusawal passenger train at Platform No.7 and as such, he was an offender under

the Railways Act. Once a offender has sustained injury though he has not been prosecuted, but admittedly his act was an offence under the law,

though no prosecution was initiated and person, who has taken law in his hand cannot be compensated under the legal provisions of law on the name

of benevolent legislation.

It has been rightly not awarded by the learned Tribunal as the case of the claimant injured comes under sub-clause (c) of Section 124-A of the

Railways Act, 1989. The act of the injured was his own criminal act by crossing the railway track, which is an offence under the provisions of

Railways Act.

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.