AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—A person holding a platform ticket falls from a moving train and later dies. Whether the Railway Administration can be fastened with the liability to pay compensation for the death of such a person on an application filed by the wife and daughters of the deceased? This is the question that has come up for consideration in this appeal by the claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The application fifed by them was dismissed by the Tribunal.
The facts in short are that on 24.2.2001, deceased Shankar Lingappa accompanied by his wife and daughter and grand daughter came to Mysore Railway Station and after his wife, daughter and grand daughter sat in the train, which was bound towards Bangalore, the deceased, who according to the claimants, was holding a platform ticket, alighted from the train at around 5.55 p.m., and as the train was moving, he fell down and his leg was caught between the platform and coach outside wall. He was literally sandwiched between the two. Later, he succumbed to the injuries at K.R. Hospital Mysore. The appellants herein being the wife and daughters of the deceased Shankar Lingappa, filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, u/s 16 of the Railways Act, 1989, and. claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, The learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the said application and in the course of his order held that a platform ticket holder is not authorised to enter a coach, tie cannot be treated as a bonafide passenger and further, the act of the deceased failing down from the moving train cannot be termed as untoward incident and by holding that the act of the deceased was a self inflicted injury coming within the explanation of Section 124A of the Railways Act. 1989 (the ''Act'' for short), Railways Claims Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that appellants herein are not entitled for any compensation. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the applications, applicants have preferred this appeal.
Learned Counsel Shri Bopanna for the appellants argued that, a careful reading of Section 124A of the Act will make it clear that even a person holding a valid platform ticket would come within the definition of ''passenger'' and consequently, as the deceased fell down from the moving train after seating his wife, daughter and grand daughter in the train, the fall from the train therefore comes within die expression untoward incident as explained in Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The learned Counsel also referred to Section 124 of die Act to contend that the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. Based on these provisions of the Act, learned Counsel argued that the Claims Tribunal while accepting the fact of the deceased having been found to be in possession of platform ticket could not have held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and as for as the incident of falling from the train is concerned, learned Counsel argued that the expression ''untoward incident'' covers the cases of a person felling down from the train while trying to enter the train as well as alighting from the train. In this regard, teamed Counsel placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, and drew special attention to paras 10 and 11 of the said decision. Therefore, it was contended that the dismissal of the claim application by the Railways Claims Tribunal is contrary to the aforementioned provision of law as contained in the Railways Act and hence the appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
On the other hand, learned Counsel Shri Viriayaka. B. for the respondent-Southern Railway argued that having regard to the scheme of the Railways Act, it cannot be said that expression "passenger" will also include a person holding a platform ticket and only for the limited purpose of Sections 123 and 124A, a person holding a valid platform ticket also has been included within the expression "passenger" but not for any other purpose and moreover, even as per the IRCA Coaching Tariff Rules 128.3, a person holding a platform ticket or platform permit, is not entitled to remain in any carriage on a railway and therefore the Claims Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants. It Is also submitted that if a person holding platform ticket is constituted as a "passenger", then the definition of "passenger" as contained in Section 2(29) would become redundant. Therefore, the question of treating the deceased who was holding a platform ticket as a passenger does not arise. As for as the untoward incident is concerned, the submission made is that Section 123(c)(2) will be applicable in respect of a person satisfying the definition of passenger as contained in Section 2(29) of the Act and it does not cover the case of a person holding a platform ticker and who is included within the expression "passenger" as mentioned in the explanation to Section 124A of the Act. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court and consequently, the appeal be dismissed.
The facts are not in dispute and so also the fact of deceased Shankar Lingappa holding a platform ticket is also not in controversy because the Railways Claims Tribunal itself has accepted that His deceased was having the platform ticket as per Bx.A4 and as such, the platform ticket was issued on the very day i.e., 24.2.2001 when the family members of the deceased came to Mysore Railway Station to board the train which was inbound towards Bangalore and the platform ticket was issued at 5.37 hours (in the evening). Therefore, taking into consideration that deceased was infect holding a valid platform ticket as per Ex.A4, the question for consideration whether such a person can be treated as a passenger having regard to the scheme of the Railways Act and whether the fall of the deceased from the moving train can be brought within the expression untoward incident? This takes us to the very provisions of the Railways Act and relevant provisions which will have to be considered are the following:
Section 2(29) defines a passenger as follows:
''Passenger'' means a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket.
Section 123(c) dealing with the expression untoward incident reads as under:
"untoward incident" means-
1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or
2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
Section 124A which deals with the compensation on account of untoward incident reads as under:
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 the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of suck 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 desease 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 was purchased a valid ticks for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
It is clear from the definition of passenger that a passenger means a person travelling with a valid pass or a ticket. The said definition does not include the case of a person holding a platform ticket and the said definition also makes it clear that in order to be considered as a person travelling in the train as a passenger, he must possess a valid pass or ticket and a person who merely holds a valid platform ticket therefore, is not entitled to travel in the train as a passenger. Keeping the aforesaid meaning of the passenger, if we read Section 123(c)(2), the logical inference that can be drawn is that if a person travelling as a passenger in a train accidentally falls from a train carrying passengers, such an act would come within the expression untoward incident. In the case on hand, the deceased was admittedly not found carrying any valid ticket or valid pass so as to treat him as a passenger. Although Section 124A in the explanation mentions that for the purpose of Section 124A, a person who had a valid platform ticket is also included within the meaning of ''passenger'', the said explanation also makes it clear that even white including a person holding a platform ticket within the expression ''passenger'', care is taken to also mention that said expression also includes a person who has purchased valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers. The use of punctuation marks in explanation (ii) also helps us to understand that a person holding a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of untoward incident, can also be included within the expression ''passengers''. The expression untoward incident which has been explained in Section 123-c makes it clear that if any unfavourable incident like Commission of Terrorist Act, making of a violent attack or commission robbery or dacoity or indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station would come within the said expression ''untoward incident'' and also the case of the passenger falling from a train carrying passengers. Therefore, the interpretation that can be given from a complete reading of Section 123(c) and 124A read with explanation (ii) is that if a person holding a platform ticket becomes victim of untoward incident, which has been illustrated in 123(c), in such an event, for the purpose of paying compensation in respect of a victim of a untoward incident, even a person holding platform ticket can be included within the expression ''passengers''.
Another reason for taking the above view is that RCA Coaching Traffic No. 24 Part I (Vol.I) in Rule 128.3 holds that a person holding a platform ticket or permit is not entitled to remain in any carriage on a Railway. Therefore, this rule also prohibits a person holding a platform ticket: to remain in a railway coach, let alone travel as a passenger, which he cannot do by virtue of definition of ''passenger'' not entitling a person with a platform ticket to travel in a train as a passenger. Therefore, even looked from this angle also, a person holding a valid platform ticket cannot be permitted to travel in the train nor to remain in die train.
As far as the deceased falling from the moving train is concerned, the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant reported in (2008)9 SCC 527 is applicable where the person who fell from the train while trying to enter the train was having a valid ticket to travel as a passenger but the said decision does not cover the instant case and that was a case where a person holding valid ticket or a pass and therefore, a passenger, fell down while trying to board a train and the Apex Court held that, the expression ''accidental falling of a passenger'' from die train carrying passenger as contained in Section 123(c)(2) will also cover the case of a person travelling with a valid ticket or pass and falling down while trying to enter a railway train. The case with which we are concerned is not the one that attracts Section 123(c)(2) of the Act but it is a case of person holding a platform ticket failing from a moving train. Though the accident is unfortunate one, having regard to the provisions of the Railways Act, which have been referred to earlier, the case of the deceased Shankar Lingappa who had a platform ticket and fell from a moving train cannot be brought within the hold of the expression "accidental falling of any passengers from a train, carrying passengers".
For the aforesaid reasons, the conclusion reached by the Railway Claims Tribunal is just and proper requiring no interference, The appeal therefore stands dismissed.