Kisan and Others vs Union of India

A.P. Bhangale, J—This appeal is filed questioning validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dt. 4.5.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/2010/0056. The learned Railway Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Claim Application finding that the applicants failed to prove the untoward incident, in which Parmeshwar Kisan Ingle lost his life, on the ground that there was no evidence as to bona fide passenger in favour of said Parmeshwar Kisan Ingle. The claim was dismissed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant/claimant. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the report from the Office of Divisional Railway Manager (Mandal Rail Prabhamdak, Bhusawal) who reported the untoward incident to the Presenting Officer in Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. According to the report itself, it was informed that Parmeshwar Kisan Ingle, aged about 21 years r/o. Awadh Bu, Tq. Nandura, District Buldhana was travelling by Train No. 1040 UP Kolhapur Maharashtra Express. According to the Accident Summary Report, Assistant Police Inspector stated that the deceased was standing inside General Coach of Train No. 1040 Maharashtra Express. At that time, when the train started, he lost his balance and fell down and ran over by the said train. This report in the record and proceedings is marked as A-37 and statement made by the co-passenger of the deceased is marked as A-54 in the record and proceedings. Both of them read together would indicate that deceased Parmeshwar Ingle and Shridhar Murlidhar Unale had purchased Railway ticket for Maharashtra Express 1040 Up while they travelled together. Parmeshwar was at the door in the General Compartment of Maharashtra Express and was travelling as a standing passenger. When the train started, he lost his balance and fell down from the running train and died. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was evidence of Kisan Dattu Ingle father of deceased who also deposed about memo from Station Master to the Railway Police Station, Jalam. Inquiry made by police. Cause of death of said Parmeshwar was mentioned as a result of hemorrhage with cardio respiratory failure. All the police papers including Report of accident u/s. 174(1) of Cr.P.C. dt. 2.1.2010 along with spot panchanama, inquest, post mortem report, death certificate etc. and also evidence of AW-2 Shridhar Murlidhar Unale indicated that seven persons had boarded the train and single ticket was purchased for seven passengers. Train had started when Parmeshwar leaned out from the door, his hand slipped from the handle of the train and he fell down. Assuming that Parmeshwar was negligent while standing near the door of General Compartment, one cannot overlook the fact that General Compartments of trains are normally crowded.

In Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2010) ACJ 2453 : AIR 2010 SC 3705 : (2010) 9 JT 138 : (2010) 12 SCC 443 : (2010) 10 SCR 523 : (2011) 1 TAC 10 : (2010) AIRSCW 5625 , Hon''ble Supreme Court considered accidentally falling of passenger from train as an untoward incident. Even assuming that deceased fell down due to his own negligence, it cannot be blameworthy like a criminal act so as to attract exceptions to exonerate the Railway Administration. In such cases also, Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation. Thus, Railways cannot escape liability on the ground that deceased was travelling in negligent manner while standing at the door of the Compartment and he fell down. Liability upon the Railway Administration in such cases is strict liability to pay compensation unless Railway Administration adduce specific evidence to substantiate any exception available to it to exonerate itself from liability to pay compensation.

In the ruling in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, (2008) ACJ 1895 : (2008) 4 JT 598 : (2008) 9 SCALE 182 : (2008) 9 SCC 527 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that if the words used in 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. 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. Therefore, unless the Railway Administration adduce specific evidence claiming that it is within stipulated exception u/s. 124-A, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation for untoward incident as a result of which passenger in the Railway train fell down and met with his death. Thus, on accidental death of a passenger from the train carrying passengers, the presumption is that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; unless specific evidence is adduced to establish that he was not bona fide passenger.

Considering the rulings on the subject, therefore, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the learned Member of the Tribunal are unsustainable in law and contrary to well established principles of law. Therefore, the appeal must be allowed. The appellants are entitled to claim sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of death of Parmeshwar Ingle since there was adequate evidence that said Parmeshwar was travelling by Maharashtra Express Train No. 1040 in a General Compartment thereof before he fell down from said train and died as a result of untoward incident on 1.1.2010 at K.M. No. 546 between pole no. 19 to 21 near Shegaon Railway Station. That being so, the impugned Judgment and Order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.

The Railway Administration is directed to pay compensation to the claimants in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of Claim Application till realisation. The amount of compensation be equally distributed between the claimants.