Union of India vs Sunita Devi & Ors.

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Present First Appeal From Orders has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned award dated 2722004, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow.

In brief, one Brijpal, a Milkman while travelling from Itauja Railway Station to Lucknow fell down from the train on 15102001 at Itauja Railway Station because of jerk and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the King Georges'' Medical University, Lucknow where he was brought after the accident. The deceased Brijpal was having a valid Monthly Seasonal Ticket (M.S.T.) to travel from Lucknow to Itauja and vice versa and the validity was up to 31102001. The dependents of the deceased Brijpal, namely Smt. Sunita Devi (wife), Smt. Ram Kali (mother), Km. Mushkan (daughter), aged about 5 years and Lali(daughter) aged about two years approached the Railway Tribunal for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs. The tribunal recorded a finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs and granted the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short Act). The tribunal declined to provide the benefit of the exception contained in Section 124A of the Act to the appellant on the ground that no evidence was led by the appellant to substantiate the pleading that the controversy in question is covered by proviso to Section 124A of the Act. However, it was raised that because of his own fault, the deceased had fallen from train and succumbed to the injuries. The tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant failed to establish its case with regard to any illegality committed by the deceased Brijpal. No eyewitness was produced by the appellant before the tribunal to substantiate its argument with regard to the pleadings contained in the written statement. The tribunal further recorded a finding that nothing has been brought on record to show that the injuries caused to the deceased were selfinflicted injuries or he was a victim of his own criminal act so as to attract the proviso to Section 124A of the Act. It has been further held by the tribunal that mere allegation without supporting evidence cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version raised by the claimantsrespondents. On the basis of the evidence on record, the tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased suffered injuries in an accident and succumbed to them and his dependents are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs in pursuance to the provisions contained in Section 124A of the Act. It has been recorded by the tribunal that the deceased was possessing M.S.T. as well as Identity Card issued by the Railway on payment of required charges, hence he was a bona fide passenger and his dependents are entitled for payment of compensation.

While assailing the impugned award, Mr. Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the M.S.T. was not duly signed by the deceased and accordingly, the deceased had acted in violation of Para 265(b) of the Commercial Manual Volume1 (hereinafter referred to as Manual) and he cannot be treated as bona fide passenger. In absence of signature, the M.S.T. possessed by the deceased was invalid in view of the provisions contained in Section 265(b) of the Manual. The conduct of the deceased was punishable under Section 142 of the Railway Act.

Other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal has not delivered judgment within 21 days but it took almost two months to deliver the judgment after conclusion of hearing. It has also been submitted that the documents filed by the parties were not put for admission or denial by the respective parties. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in [2004(22) LCD 986 Union of India v. Smt. Jameela and others].

On the other hand, while rebutting the submission made by the appellant''s counsel, Shri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment reported in 2001 (1) TAG 250 (All.)] Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway versus Puttan Bihari Lal Shukla and another Division Bench judgment of this Court decided on 12122008 in F.A.F.O. No. 100 of 2003 (reported in 2009 (4) ALJ 131) Smt. Akhtari v. Union of India through GM, NER, Gorakhpur.

It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that under Section 18 of the Act, tribunal has got power to regulate its own procedure including fixing of cases and time of their disposal etc.

So far as the first limb of argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to para 265 of the Railway Commercial Manual is concerned, it provides that the season tickets are not transferable and the name of the person in whose favour the season ticket is issued, his or her age and sex should invariably be shown on the ticket by the Booking Clerk and it shall be necessary for its validity to bear the signature or left hand thumb impression of the holder of the season ticket. For convenience, Para 265 of the Manual is reproduced as under:

"Seasonal tickets are not transferable and should not be issued in favour of "one man of......." or "One servant of......." The name of the person in whose favour the season ticket is issued, his/her age and sex should invariably be shown on the ticket by the Booking Clerk. A season ticket will not be valid unless it bears the signature or left hand thumb impression of the holder. Season ticket, if used at any time by any person other than that in whose favour issued, will be forfeited and the person so using it will be liable for prosecution under Section 142 of the Railway Act."

It has not been disputed that the Manual consists of the compilation of the orders, issued by the Railway Board from time to time to regulate its functioning. Attention of this Court has been invited to Section 50 of the Act which provides that a person desirous of travelling on a railway shall, upon payment of the fare, be supplied with a ticket by a railway servant or an agent authorised in this behalf. Under Section 51, it shall be the duty of the Railways to issue ticket subject to the condition of availability of accommodation in the class of carriage and the train for which the ticket is issued. Section 52 provides that in case a passenger boarding the train has not travelled for any reason, the amount paid in lieu of ticket shall be refunded. For convenience, Sections 50, 51 and 52 are reproduced as under:

"50. Supply of ticket on payment of fare.(1) Any person desirous of travelling on a Railway shall, upon payment of the fare, be supplied with a ticket by a railway servant or an agent authorised in this behalf and such ticket shall contain the following particulars, namely:

(1) the date of issue;

(ii) the class of carriage; (iii) the place from and the place to which it is issued; and

(iv) the amount of the fare.

(2) Every Railway administration shall display the hours during which booking windows at a station shall be kept open for the issue of tickets to passengers.

(3) The particulars required to be specified on a ticket under clause (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1) shall,

(a) if it is for the lowest class of carriage, be set forth in Hindi, English and the regional language commonly in use at the place of issue of the ticket; and

(b) if it is for any other class of carriage, be set forth in Hindi and English;

Provided that where it is not feasible to specify such particulars in any such language due to mechanization or any other reason, the Central Government may exempt such particulars being specified in that language."

"51. Provision for case in which ticket is issued for class or train not having accommodation for additional passengers.(1) A ticket shall be deemed to have been issued subject to the condition of availability of accommodation in the class of carriage and the train for which the ticket is issued.

(2) If no accommodation is available in the class of carriage for which a ticket is issued and the holder thereof travels in a carriage of a lower class, he shall, on returning such ticket, be entitled to a refund of the difference between the fare paid by him and the fare payable for the class of carriage in which he travels."

"52. Cancellation of ticket and refund. If a ticket is returned for cancellation, the railway administration shall cancel the same and refund such amount as may be prescribed."

A combined reading of the statutory provisions, referred to above, indicates that after payment of dues or charges for a ticket, a passenger shall be entitled to board the train and as far as possible, it shall be incumbent for the Railways to provide accommodation.

In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the deceased was possessing M.S.T. and he had paid the required charges. Though under the Manual relied upon by the appellant, there is a provision for signature over the M.S.T. but the statutory provisions contained in the Act do not contain any such provision. It has also not been disputed by the parties counsel that while issuing M.S.T, an identity card was also issued to the deceased keeping in view the provisions contained in the Manual. The identity card itself contains the signature of the deceased along with photograph. Accordingly, the purpose of signature over the M.S.T. is only to ensure that the ticket is not transferred or abused and benefit of such M.S.T. is availed by the person in whose name it has been issued by the Railways.

Along with M.S.T, Identity Card containing photograph, is also issued. The Identity Card seems to be a proof of establishing the identity of the card holder. The appellant''s counsel has not brought to the notice of the Court nor made any pleading in the appeal which may indicate that the MST was not issued in the name of the deceased Brijpal nor it has been said that the deceased was not possessing identity card along with photograph. The provisions contained in Para 265 of the Manual seems to be directory in nature. In case the identity of a railway passenger is established by other material evidence on record like identity card which is said to be issued simultaneously along with M.S.T. ticket and statutory provisions contained in the Act empower a passenger to travel in a train, then right to claim compensation in the event of any happening under the Railway Act shall not be forfeited. The purpose of para 265 of the Railway Commercial Manual is to check the abuse of M.S.T. Things would have been different in case a person while travelling in a train is caught by the Train Ticket Examiner (T.T.E.) without any proof to establish his or her bona fide. In the absence of signature on the seasonal ticket, he or she may be directed to establish identity or leave the train with penalty in accordance with law. The T.T.E. may ask the MST holder to sign the M.S .T. and proof of his or her identity by other material evidence, like identity card, failing which he may take action in accordance with law. In the event of death, since the family members of the deceased cannot establish the circumstances under which the deceased had not signed the M.S.T. but the identity is established by other evidence on record, it cannot be treated to be a ground to deny the compensation under the Act. Such M.S.T. holder shall be deemed to be bona fide passenger for the purpose of payment of compensation. The provisions contained in para 265B is but table and the Dependents of M.S.T. holder shall have right to establish their bona fide by other evidence or relevant materials. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the tribunal does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality.

The Court''s attention has been invited to the judgment delivered in the case of Puttan Bihari Lal Shukla (supra). In this context, it may be observed that the tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgment in Puttan Bihari Lal Shukla''s case (supra) where Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court has observed that merely because a person travelling in a train has not signed the MST, he cannot be said to be a bona fide passenger. Hon''ble Single Judge further observed that in case from other evidence on record, the identity of the person travelling in the train is established, the dependants of the deceased passenger cannot be denied the compensation only because the MST was not signed.

So far as the submission of the appellant''s counsel that the judgment was not delivered within 21 days, is concerned, the said contention does not seem to be of any help to the appellant, though ordinarily, it is expected that the tribunal shall deliver the judgment within the specified period. However, for any reason whatsoever, in case the judgment is pronounced after some delay but the judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, then such judgment shall not lose its efficacy only because it has been delivered after 21 days. Of course, in case the tribunal failed to deliver a judgment within 21 days for oblique motive or for bad intent, then such action may call for interference by this Court because of delayed delivery of judgment. However, learned counsel for the appellant has not drawn this Court''s attention towards any material on record that the tribunal was bias while delivering the judgment after two months. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award on the ground of delayed delivery of judgment.

So far as the submission of the appellant''s counsel that the documents were not placed for admission or denial is concerned, it seems to be procedural illegality and does not affect the very root of the issue involved. Both sides have led evidence in support of their pleadings and thereafter on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the tribunal has rendered the impugned award. Once the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate their case in the light of the pleadings on record, the procedural illegality shall not affect the merit of the controversy.

The appellant''s counsel further relied upon a judgment reported in [2004(22) LCD 986] Union of India versus Smt. Jameela and others and submits that the "deceased was at fault while travelling in the train resulting in the accident and as such his dependants are not entitled for compensation. While deciding an identical controversy, a Division Bench, of which one of us (Hon''ble Devi Prasad Singh, J) was a member, in FAFO No. 100 of 2003 (reported in 2009 (4) ALJ 131) Smt. Akhtari versus Union of India through G.M. NER, Gorakhpur, the provisions contained in Section 124 of the Act were interpreted relying upon various Apex Court''s judgments. The benefit of Section 124 of the Act can be denied only in case the accident is covered by the proviso to said Section. For convenience, Section 124A is reproduced as under:

"124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.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 dependent 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 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 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.

In the present case, nothing has been brought on record nor attention of the Court has been invited to any pleading to establish that the explanation given in the proviso to Section 124A is attracted. The tribunal has rightly held that the appellant has failed to establish that the deceased suffered from selfinflicted injuries or it was because of his own criminal act or any other conditions provided in proviso to Section 124A of the Act.

In the case of Jameela (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has not laid down any law with regard to applicability of proviso to Section 124A of the Act. It appears that in the case of Jameela (supra), the Division Bench has failed to take notice with regard to the proviso of Section 124A. Once the bona fide of the deceased Brijpal is established from the fact of his possessing M.S.T. with identity card, then his dependants seem to be entitled for compensation.

While interpreting the provisions contained in Section 124A of the Act in FAFO No. 100 of 2003 : (reported in 2009 (4) ALJ 131) (supra), a recent judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2008(2) TAG 777: (2008 AIR SCW 4165) Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others was relied upon by this Court. In the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), while interpreting the provisions of Section 123 of the Railways Act, the Hon''ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid proposition of law and held that if the words used in a 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. It has further been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court that it shall not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when he fell down or whether he was only trying to get into the train when he fell down. The falling down from train has been treated as untoward incident and Hon''ble Supreme Court held that restrictive meaning should not be given to the accidental falling of a passenger from a train. Section 124A of the Act had held to be a case of strict liability or no fault liability in the event of accidents. The fault cannot be looked into. The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (supra) are reproduced hereunder:

"10. 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.

No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression ''accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers, the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in 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. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (Para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 : (AIR 2001 SC 2953) (Para 12), Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 : (AIR 2000 SC 238) etc.

It is well settled that if the words used in a 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. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Almbic Chemical Works Co. Ltd v. The Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 647 (para 7), Jeewan Lal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 : (AIR 2003 SC 3553) (para 12) etc.

In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression ''accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression ''accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e., a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.

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.

In India, the landmark Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 has gone much further then Rylands v. Fletcher, (supra) in imposing strict liability. The Court observed "if the enterprise is permitted to carry on any 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." The Court also observed that this strict liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher,(supra)".

In view of the above, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant does not seem to be sustainable and the respondentclaimants are seem to be entitled for compensation as awarded by the tribunal. The findings of facts as well as various cases relied upon by the tribunal and the award rendered thereon do not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality.

The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Costs easy.