AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Devadass
This appeal has been directed by the Southern Railway as against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, ordering a
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondents 2 and 3, who are parents of one Bakkiyaraj, who died in a train accident. On 24.08.2007,
Bakkiyaraj, then 24 years old, travelled in Train No.6607 Chennai-Mangalore Express from Chennai to Karur. The train had an unscheduled halt
at Veeravakiyam Railway Station. After some time, the train started moving. He fell down from the moving train and died on the spot. According
to his parents, in the train, as there was much crowd, he was standing near the entrance of the compartment, abruptly, the train started from
Veeravakiyam Railway Station, due to the jerking and jolting of the train, the door of the compartment, which was kept open, dashed on his head,
he slipped and fell down from the moving train and died.
The Railways filed reply statement disputing that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and it had also disputed the manner of the accident
pleaded.
The Railway Tribunal framed 5 issues, namely, (1) Was the deceased a bonafide passenger in the train? (2) Was there an ''untoward incident''
involving the deceased? (3) Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased? (4) Whether the applicants are entitled to any
compensation? if so, the quantum for each? (5) To what relief, if any?
Before the Tribunal, the second respondent, who is the father of the deceased deposed as A.W.1. And through him Exs.A1 to A8 have been
marked. Railways marked Exs.R1 and R2. But, it did not let in any oral evidence.
Appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that on 24.08.2007, in Chennai-Mangalore Express, the deceased travelled as a bonafide
passenger, he suffered accidental death, which is an ''untoward incident'' as per Section 123 (c) (2) and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989,
respondents 2 and 3 as his dependents are entitled to the maximum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
According to Mr. T.S. Rajamohan, learned counsel for the Southern Railways, there is no proper evidence as to the manner of accident,
Exs.R1 and R2 were not properly considered, thus, the finding of the Tribunal is unsustainable.
However, Mr. T. Rajamohan, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 contended that Ex.A7 establishes that the deceased travelled in the train
as a bonafide passenger. The earliest records, the evidence collected by the police and the police Final Report corroborates the claim of
respondents 2 and 3. The onus is upon the Railways to establish its contrary version. However, there was no convincing and acceptable evidence
from the Railways. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants are eligible for compensation. Further, the case comes u/s
123(c)(2) r/w 124A of the Railways Act,1989. It incorporates ''Rule of Strict Liability''. In such circumstances, question of finding the fault lies on
whom is irrelevant. In such circumstances, the Railway is bound to pay them compensation. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for
respondents 2 and 3 also cited Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others [2008(4) MLJ 323(SC)] and Jameela & Others Vs.
Union of India [AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3705].
I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides, perused the evidence on record, the impugned order and went through the
decisions cited.
The Railways Act,1989 is a complete code dealing with various matters connected with the running of trains, Railway Administration, claiming
of compensation for death or other causalities in a train accident. Chapter XIII of the Act deals with the railway ""accident"" and ''untoward incident''
and liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to Railway passengers due to accidents.
It is relevant here to note Sections 2(29), 123, 124A of the Railways Act,1989. They runs as under:-
Section 2(29)
''Passenger'' means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket.
Definitions.-
(a) ""accident"" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;
(b)....
(c) ""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.
(emphasis supplied by me)
Section 124A:- Compensation on account of untoward incidents:-
124A. 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 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 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 injury due to-
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-infected injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or decease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said
untoward incident.
Explanation.- For the purpose 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.
Section 2(29) of the Act defines ""passenger"" to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Act defines
''untoward incident'' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
The onus is upon the Railways to establish that the deceased or injured is not a bonafide Railway passenger (see Agam Shanthamma Vs.
Union of India (2004 ACJ 713 AP) and P.Ramasamy Vs. Union of India (2004 ACJ 231 AP).
By way of a proviso certain category of death of Railway passenger are excluded from the operation of Section 124A of the Act. They are
mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A (supra). These 5 cases are excluded categories. They will not be ''untoward
incidents''. Railways is exonerated from payment of compensation to those involved in these excluded categories. But, the onus is upon the
Railways to bring the case under any one of the said clauses.
In Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar and Others [2008 (4) MLJ 323 (SC)], the Hon''ble Supreme Court analysed the nature of
liability introduced in Section 124A of the Act and held as under:-
Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section
124A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
The said ''Rule of Strict Liability'' was laid down in England by Lord Justice Blackburn in Rylands V. Fletcher [1866 LRI EX 265]. In the
House of Lords, it was approved by Lord Justice Cairns (1868 LR 3 HL 330).
The basis of the doctrine of ''Strict Liability'' is twofold: (i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of
the risk of damage that their activities generate, and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity
being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products (see Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 267).
Thus, in cases where the ''Rule of Strict Liability'' applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the
defendant may not have been at any fault.
In America, the said Rule was adapted and expressed in the following words ""one who carried on an ultra-hazardous activity is liable to
another whose person, land or chattels the actor should recognise as likely to be harmed by the unpreventable miscarriage of the activity for harm
resulting thereto from that which makes the activity ultra-hazardous, although the utmost care is exercised to prevent the harm"" (see Restatement of
the Law of Torts, Vol. 3, p. 41).
In France, the liability of the State is without fault, and the ''Principle of Strict Liability'' applies (see C.J. Hanson ""Government Liability in Tort
in the English and French Legal Systems"").
In India, the landmark Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others, has gone
much further than Rylands V. Fletcher (supra) in imposing strict liability. The Court observed ""if the enterprise is permitted to carry on an
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the
cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads.
In Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar and Others [(2008) 4 MLJ 323 (SC)], the Hon''ble Apex Court held as under:-
In various social welfare statutes the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to people against death and injuries,
irrespective of fault.
Thus, Section 3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 provides for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of
employment, and this compensation is not for negligence on the part of the employer but is a sort of insurance to workmen against certain risks of
accidents.
Similarly, Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, Sections 140 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Public Liability Insurance
Act, 1991, etc. incorporate the principle of strict liability.
In Prabhakaran Vijayakumar (supra) it was claimed before the Railway Claims Tribunal that the lady passenger had fallen from the moving
Parasuram Express at the Varkala Railway Station and her dead body was found on the railway platform. However, the Tribunal accepting the
contention of the Railways that the deceased while attempting to board the running train fell down, sustained injuries and died and it will not be an
''untoward incident'' u/s 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. On appeal, the Kerala High Court took the view that the deceased sustained injuries in
her anxiety to get into the moving train, so, she comes within the expression ''accidental falling of passenger from a train carrying passengers'' which
is ''untoward incident'' u/s 123(c).
On appeal by the Railways, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:-
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 trying to get 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.
The Hon''ble Apex Court finally held as under:-
Thus, in cases where the principle of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the
defendant may not have been at any fault.
In Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), the dependents of one M.Hafeez claimed compensation before the Railway Claim Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench alleging that the deceased was travelling from Ahmedabad to Lucknow by Awadh Express with a valid ticket fell down from the
train, near the Magarwara Railway Station and died in an untoward incident. The Railways contended that there was no negligence on its part. The
Tribunal rejected it and awarded compensation to the claimants.
On appeal, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court accepted the contention of the Railways that the deceased was travelling in a
negligent manner standing near the door from where he fell down near the Railway Station and thus allowed the Appeal observing as under:
On the basis of the law and facts indicated by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the present case the victim is to be blamed for the
incident being negligent and therefore this case is not covered by the definition of untoward incident. However, so far as the compensation is
concerned the case of the claimant is covered by the provision of Section 124A as because of his own negligence the deceased had fallen down
from the train which caused his death. Further, in the light of the fact that the deceased acted in a negligent manner without any precaution of safety
by station going at the open door of the running train which resulted into his death.
On claimants appeal, the Hon''ble Supreme Court after referring to Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, held as under:-
It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore,
clearly a ""passenger"" for the purpose of Section 124A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that u/s 124A the liability to pay
compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the proviso to the section says
that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to
any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e).
Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railways that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted
injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any
natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental.
The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train
compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on
Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause
(c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act,
even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in
its favour.
The Hon''ble Apex Court concluded:
... even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the
compensation payable u/s 124A of the Act.
Recently, in Varkey and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI), the deceased, a bonafide passenger travelled in Island Express, from Kottayam to
Bangalore, with a reserved ticket and when the train was nearing Madukarai Railway Station, accidentally, fell down from the train and died of
head injury. The Railways contended that the deceased travelling standing near the door way keeping the door opened and fell down due to his
own careless and negligent act, so, no compensation is payable u/s 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
held that there was no evidence to show that the act of the deceased was suicide or self-inflicted injury and when the act of the deceased does not
come within any of the categories in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, the death of the deceased would come
within the ambit of accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passenger defined as an untoward incident.
Recently, in Harvinder Kaur and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), , the claimants claimed that the deceased died due to accidental slip from
the train on account of heavy rush of passengers and sudden jerk of the train. However, the Railways contended that he fell down because he
attempted to get down from a moving train at an unscheduled stoppage. But, there was no evidence let in by the Railways. In the circumstances,
the Delhi High Court relying on JAMEELA (supra) held that even the case of a passenger, who might have been standing on the footboard, may
be negligently, is covered by the definition of ''untoward incident'', as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in JAMEELA (supra), thus,
the dependants of the deceased are entitled to the maximum compensation of Rs.4 lakhs.
Thus, from the above analysis of Sections 2 (29), 123, 123(c), 123(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, if a bonafide passenger dies or
sustain injuries, it will be an ''untoward incident'', and irrespective of his negligence or contributory negligence, the Railway is liable to pay
compensation to the victims or the dependants of the deceased as prescribed under the Act. So, it introduced principle of ''no fault liability''. It is
also ''Rule of strict liability''. The Railways can exonerate itself from paying compensation if the incident falls under any one of clauses (a) to (e) in
proviso to Section 124A. The onus to bring the case under any one of the said exclusion clause is upon the Railways.
In the case before us, on 24.08.2007, the deceased Bakkiyaraj travelled in Mangalore Express. Ex.A7 is the railway ticket possessed by him.
He travelled from Chennai Egmore to Karur. The Railway did not dispute the genuineness of Ex.A7. Nor let in any contra evidence. Thus, the
deceased had travelled in the train as a bonafide passenger. So, he comes within Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989.
According to AW-1, the father of the deceased that due to crowd in the compartment his son travelled standing near the entrance to the
Compartment, when the train suddenly moved from an unscheduled halt at Veeravakiyam Railway Station, due to jerking and jolting, his son had
fallen down since the door of the compartment has been kept open. Ex.R1 message from the Railway Staff at the said Railway Station is that on
25.08.2007, at about that time, a male aged about 30 years was killed in a train accident. Ex.R2 DRM''s Report also confirms the said death in the
train accident.
As to the above train accident, the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Trichy, registered a case of suspicious death u/s 174 Cr.P.C.
(see Ex.A1 F.I.R.). The Inspector took up his investigation. Ex.A.2 is the Inquest Report. The police examined five witnesses and came to the
conclusion that on 24.08.2007, at the Veeravakiyam Railway Station, at about 6.45 p.m., the Chennai-Managlore Express train made an
unscheduled halt and the train moved suddenly, there was much crowd in the train and a person standing near the entrance to the compartment due
to the jerking and jolting fell down due to the slip of the hand grip and he was ran over by the wheels of the train and he died on the spot.
Concluding the investigation, the police filed Ex.A.4 Final Report. It also contains similar information.
In Ex.R.2, DRM''s Report it is stated that the death was due to his gross negligence and the Railway is not responsible for this incident. There
was no iota of evidence to that effect from the Railways. The deceased was a bonafide Railway passenger. He fell down from the moving train
from the compartment and died. There is no evidence from the Railways that he had attempted suicide, inflicted injury due to his own criminal act
or he was drunk or he is an insane nor there was any natural cause or he suffered diseases. The Railways has not established that his death falls
under any one of the clauses from (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124A of the Act. In view of the Apex Court''s decision in Prabhakaran
Vijayakumar (supra) and Jameela (supra) the stand of the Railways that he died due to negligence (of course, it was not established) is of no avail
to Railways because the case before us is an ''untoward incident'' and Sections 123 and 124A incorporates the Rule of Strict Liability or in other
words, no fault liability. So, in such circumstances, the negligence pleaded by the Railways, even, if proved is to be ignored. The principles laid
down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Prabhakaran Vijayakumar (supra) and Jameela (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. Since
respondents 2 and 3 are dependants of the deceased, they are eligible for compensation.
Now, we will pass on to the question of quantum of compensation. The railway accident took place on 24.08.2007. The deceased died on the
spot. On 22.04.2009, the Claims Tribunal awarded them Rs.4,00,000/-.
As per Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, the extent of liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation in case of death,
personal injuries and property damage arising out of train accident is as may be prescribed. Section 129 empowers the Central Government to
make Rules for payment of compensation in case of death and personal injuries. Section 127 exclusively deal with rates of compensation for injury
and loss of goods. In pursuance of its said power, the Central Government framed ""the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation Rules), 1990"" repealing the previous Railway Accidents (Compensation Rules), 1989. Previously, Rs.2 lakhs has been prescribed
as maximum compensation. With effect from 01.11.1997 this has been hiked to Rs.4,00,000/-. In the schedule to the said 1990 Rules, payment of
compensation has been classified into, Part-I, Part-II and Part-III, which are for grant of compensation for death, permanent disability and other
kinds of injuries respectively, for cases under Part-I and Part-II, the maximum compensation prescribed is Rs.4,00,000/-. As per Rule 4, in no
case, the compensation shall exceed Rs.4,00,000/-. In Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, and in N. Parameswaran Pillai and Another Vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Another, it was held that in no case the compensation shall exceed the said Rs.4,00,000/-.
Section 128(1) does not prevent claiming of compensation for railway accident under other Acts before other Forums. It also does not prevent
claiming of compensation under Tort Law before a Civil Court. But, it prevents double compensation from both the Forums.
When we compare the rate of compensation prescribed in the said Railway Rules for loss of life, permanent disabilities and personal injuries
with other enactments dealing with grant of compensation such as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Commissioner under Workmen Compensation
Act, or even the Civil Courts under Tort Law, the compensation prescribed under the Railway Rules is far less.
Under various heads, such as for loss of dependency; loss of love and affection; mental agony; medical expenses; cremation expenses;
nutritious food expenses; loss of estate; loss of cosmetics; loss of consortium; pain and suffering etc., compensation has been granted by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunals to the road accident victims. Depending upon the age of the deceased, size of the family, compensation is calculated
choosing appropriate multiplier and even loss of future prospects in case the deceased held a stable job also has been granted by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (see Smt. Sarala Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)]). Now,
even to persons employed in unorganised sectors or private jobs compensation for loss of future prospects has been granted by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (see Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others,
However, in the Railway Rules, whatever might be the extent of pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses occasioned to the family of the deceased
or victims of the railway accident, maximum Rs.4,00,000/- alone has been granted.
The basic principle for grant of compensation to the victims is that they should get just compensation. Even Section 127(2) of the Railways Act
says that award of compensation must be reasonable. Compensation must be commensurate with the loss occasioned to the victims. But,
presently, under the 1990 Railway Rules, whatever might be the nature, extent and loss to the victims Rs.4,00,000/- alone that too it was fixed on
01.11.1997 has been prescribed under the said Railway Rules. It does not appear to be a fair, reasonable and just compensation and it is also not
based on relevant aspects.
In the case before us, considering the young age and income of the deceased, respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to more than Rs.4,00,000/- as
compensation. But, in view of Section 124 and Rule 4 of the 1990 Railway Rules, both the Railway Claims Tribunal and this Court has no power
to grant them more than Rs.4,00,000/-.
As per Section 129 of the Railways Act, the Central Government has got the power to prescribe the rate. It has the power to spelt out the
principles to be adopted by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which will enable the Railway Tribunal to take into account all relevant factors and
determine a fair, reasonable and just compensation to the victims of train accident.
At any rate, the outer limit of Rs.4,00,000/- is quite inadequate and it is high time that it has to be revised by the Central Government and in
exercise of its Rule making power u/s 129 it can empower the Railway Claims Tribunal to award a fair, reasonable and just compensation
analogous to the principles adopted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Commissioner under Workman Compensation Act, etc. In the result,
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench is upheld. As the amount deposited is now
lying for a considerable time, respondents 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw the entire balance. No costs.