R. Anbalagan and Others vs Union of India

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai in O.A. No. 158 of 2009 have preferred

the present civil miscellaneous appeal against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim made by them for compensation for the death of late

Rathinasamy, who slipped and fell down on the floor of the train, while he was travelling from Chennai to Kovilpatti on 30.4.2007 at about 2.30

Hours. According to the applicants/claimants, the deceased Rathinasamy, along with his family members, boarded the train bearing Train No.

2693 (Pearl City Express) on 29.4.2007 at Chennai Egmore and the deceased was holding a valid ticket. When the train was crossing

Manapparai Railway Station, he went to the toilet in the train and at that point of time, he slipped and accidentally fell down on account of

improper maintenance of toilet due to jerking and jolting in the moving train in between Manapparai and Dindigul Railway Stations and he sustained

grievous injuries, which ultimately proved to be fatal. Describing the said accidental fall as an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) of the

Railways Act and holding the Union of India, owner of Southern Railway liable to pay compensation, the appellants/applicants made the claim

before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai. The claim was resisted by the respondent contending that the death was not due to any untoward

incident and on the other hand it was a natural death and that hence the respondent was not liable to pay compensation.

The fifth appellant/fifth applicant was the sole witness (A.W. 1) on the side of the appellants/applicants and 10 documents were marked as Exs.

A.1 to A.10 on the side of the appellants/applicants. No witness was examined and only one document was marked as Ex. R.1 on the side of the

respondent Southern Railway.

The Tribunal, after considering the claim and the evidence produced on both sides, came to the conclusion that though the deceased was a

bona-fide traveller holding a valid ticket and he fell down and sustained injuries near toilet in the compartment, since the deceased was aged about

87 years, he fell down due to old age and the injuries sustained by him could not be said to be injuries sustained in an untoward incident as

described u/s 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. In line with the said finding, the Tribunal negatived the claim made by the appellants herein and

dismissed the claim application by the impugned order dated 9.4.2010. The said order dismissing the claim is challenged by the appellants by

preferring the present civil miscellaneous appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 on various grounds set out in the memorandum of

civil miscellaneous appeal.

The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are.

Whether the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal holding that the death of Rathinasamy was a natural death and hence, the appellants were not

entitled to compensation is erroneous?

Whether the appellants are to be held entitled to claim compensation u/s 124A of the Railways Act?

The arguments advanced by Mr. S.T. Raja Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants and by Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel for the

respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that late Rathinasamy, the father of the appellants 1 to 5 was a bona-fide passenger travelling in Pearl City

Express with Train No. 2693 from Chennai to Kovilpatti on 29.4.2007/30.4.2007 holding valid Second Class travel ticket bearing No.

66100725. The same has been marked as Ex. A.5. It is also not in dispute that when the train crossed the Manapparai Railway Station, he went to

the toilet in his compartment to answer the nature''s call and while coming out of the toilet, he slipped and accidentally fell down, on account of

which, he sustained injuries and that the Station Master at Dindigul Railway Station was informed of the said occurrence and he arranged for an

Ambulance to take Rathinasamy to the hospital for treatment on the arrival of the train at Dindigul Railway Station It is also not in dispute that when

the Ambulance reached the Government Hospital, Dindigul, the Doctor checked him and found him dead. Thereafter, an autopsy was conducted

and the post-mortem examination report was marked as Ex. A.4. Based on the copy of the message given by the Station Master, Dindigul under

Ex. A.10, Ex. A.1-the First Information Report, was registered. A copy of the inquest report and a copy of the final report submitted by the police

after investigation have been produced as Exs. A.2 and A.3. The fifth appellant/5th applicant has also deposed in clear terms that he accompanied

his father while he was going to the toilet in the compartment and that when his father attempted to come out from the toilet after answering the

nature''s call, he slipped and accidentally fell down and sustained injuries because of the improper maintenance of the toilet and the same proved to

be fatal.

In the post-mortem certificate marked as Ex. A.4, it is stated that the deceased had sustained bleeding injuries on the mouth and both nostrils,

an abrasion over the right eye brow, a cut injury over the right eye brow measuring to 1 cm x 1 cm and an abrasion measuring 2 cm x 1 cm on the

lips. The post-mortem certificate also evidences the fact that the deceased died due to Grade I bleeding pursuant to the injuries sustained in the

above said incident. The post-mortem certificate clearly establishes the fact that the death was not due to any cardiac arrest or other natural cause.

However, the Tribunal has chosen to hold that the death was to be construed as one that occurred due to natural cause. The Tribunal has been

carried away by the fact that the deceased was aged about 87 years. Consideration of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal will also indicate that

the Tribunal attributed old age as the cause for the slip.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has rightly contended that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the death was due to

natural cause, namely old age, disregarding the medical evidence that the death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage. It is the further contention

of the learned counsel for the appellants that since bleeding injuries leading to shock and hemorrhage were caused as a result of a fall inside the

train while coming out of the toilet, the said incident is to be taken as untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent made an attempt to contend that the statutory liability is attached to the railways only in case

of accidental fall from the train while boarding the train or alighting from the train and that any injury sustained due to the fall inside the compartment

will not be considered to be an injury sustained in an untoward incident by the definition found in the aforesaid Section. When this Court posed a

question to the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether he was advocating the plea that any fall inside the compartment due to improper

maintenance of the compartment making the floor slippery would not be construed as untoward incident, the learned counsel for the respondent

fairly conceded that such cases also can be taken as cases of untoward incident and contended on the other hand that when a person at old age

slips and falls down due to senility, the same could not be considered as an untoward incident. This Court is not in a position to accept the above

said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.

Section 123(c)(2) defines the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers as one of the untoward incidents referred to

in the said provision. If literal meaning is given to such provision, it may result in holding that only when a passenger falls down from a train, the

same can be termed as untoward incident. If it is considered in the light of exemption provided u/s 124A of the Railways Act, such an

interpretation shall not be desirable. The following alone are the exemptions provided therein:

(a) suicide or attempted suicide,

(b) self-inflicted injury,

(c) injury caused by his own criminal act,

(d) any act committed by the passenger in a state of intoxication or insanity, and

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment provided such treatment has not become necessary due to injury caused by the

said untoward incident.

For better appreciation entire Section 124A is reproduced hereunder:

Compensation on account of untoward incidents: 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 any thing 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 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; and

(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.

If a conjoint reading of Sections 123 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and a purposive interpretation is made taking into account the

intention of the Legislature to protect the passengers sustaining injuries in untoward incidents, the term ""accidental fall from the train"" has to be

interpreted to mean not only a fall from the train on the platform or ground but also a fall on the floor of the compartment itself. In all such cases,

the appellants/applicants are not expected to plead or prove negligence on the part of the railway to prove liability cast on the railway to

compensate the injured or the legal representative of the deceased. Even otherwise, when the poor maintenance of the compartment causes the

floor slippery and the passenger slips and falls down, concerned Railway cannot contend that there was no fault on the part of the Railway

administration and hence it need not pay compensation. The Railway administration is expected to be user friendly and it has to make provision for

the protection of the passengers, including special care to senior citizens. The toilet should be maintained in such a way that they are user friendly

not only for ordinary passengers, but also for the senior citizens. That is the reason why the Legislature has chosen to attach statutory liability to the

Railways to pay compensation for the death or injury to such passenger in an untoward accident. The Railway Administration cannot plead that

there was no want of care on the part of the Railway and hence, the Railway administration is not liable to pay compensation. If such a plea of the

Railway administration is entertained, then in each and every case, the claim shall be sought to be resisted contending that there was no fault or

negligence on the part of the Railway administration and it was due to negligence on the part of the passenger, who sustained injuries. That is the

reason why Legislature itself attached statutory liability on the Railway administration concerned. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel

for the respondent that the deceased fell down due to his old age and hence the same cannot be taken as untoward incident has got to be

discountenanced.

Similar is the strength of the contention made by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding cause of death. The Medical Officer, who

conducted autopsy has propounded shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained in the accident as the cause of the death. When such is the

clear medical evidence, Railway Administration cannot be allowed to contend that the death was due to natural cause, namely old age. The

Tribunal failed to consider this aspect in proper perspective and such failure has led to a perverse finding that the death of the passenger was due

to natural cause and that hence the applicants were not entitled to get compensation. The said perverse finding needs to be interfered with and set

aside by this Court in exercise of its appellate power. Accordingly, the said finding is reversed and it is hereby held that the death of the passenger

Rathinasamy occurred due to an untoward incident as described in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act 1989.

A fixed amount is prescribed as compensation in case of death of a passenger in an untoward incident. The appellants/applicants 1 to 5, who

are the legal representatives of the deceased Rathinasamy as evidenced by Ex. A.9-legal heir certificate, are entitled to claim the said amount,

namely Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation from the respondent. Though there is no specific provision for award of interest, relying on the dictum of

the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , this Court decides to award interest

also for the above said amount from the date of application, namely 26.11.2009 till the date of deposit, at the rate of 6% per annum. However, this

Court chooses to direct the parties to bear their respective costs in the appeal. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is

set aside. The respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of application till the date of deposit. The said deposit should be made within two months from today. The parties shall bear their

respective costs in the appeal.