Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.30 of 2015 Smt. Gayatri Devi, W/o Lt. Shivanand Pandey, R/o at Village - Gangapur, Tola - Meenapur, P.O. - Chaubey, Chhapra, P.S. - Haldi, District - Ballia (Uttar Pradesh) …… Appellant Versus The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. - Hajipur, District - Hajipur (Bihar) …... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --------- For the Appellant : Mr. R. K. Jha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V. K. Sinha, A.S.C (Railway) --------- nd 07/Dated:
02. May, 2016 I.A. No.7037 of 2015 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 420 days in preferring the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has not raised any serious objection.
3. Heard. In view of the reasons given in paras - 4 & 5 of the supporting affidavit, reasonable explanation and sufficient cause is made out accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned.
4. I.A. No.7037 of 2015 stands allowed. M.A. No.30 of 2015 5. This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in case no.OA/(IIU)/RNC/ 2012/0022 whereby, the compensation claimed by the appellant, i.e., the widow of the deceased, Shivanand Pandey, has been rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. That the deceased, Shivanand Pandey had boarded, Maurya Express, i.e., train no.15028 at Chhapra Junction on 21.10.2011 and he sustained grievous injuries as he fell down while trying to re-board the compartment in between Samastipur Railway Station and Ujiarpur Railway Station. It is argued by the learned counsel - 02 - that the evidence is on record that the deceased had sustained injuries when he fell down while re-boarding the compartment, after alighting at Samastipur Railway Station to contact the TTE. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased fell down due to his own negligence by relying on the report of the Divisional Railway Manager and the narration in the report of the G.R.P.F that due to indisposition of health he fell down accordingly, the accident is covered under exception 'e' of Section 124A of the Railways Act. It is argued by the learned counsel that such falling down while boarding the train comes within the definition of 'untoward incident' in terms of Section 123(c) (2) and the provisions of exception 'e' of Section 124A is not attracted as there is no evidence that the deceased died on account of sickness or any other medical complications in terms of exception 'e' of Section 124A.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-railway has argued that the learned Tribunal while adjudicating, issue no.02, 'whether falling of the deceased while boarding the train comes within untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989', has upheld the report of the Divisional Railway Manager, wherein it has been categorically stated that the deceased died due to his own negligence, which is also supported by the report of the officials of the Railway Protection Force. It is argued that it is admitted case that the deceased was suffering from sickness and he had deboarded the compartment to contact the TTE, but in the meantime, the train had started and when the deceased tried to re-board the train, he fell down and this was due to his own negligence, hence, the said incident comes within the exception '(e)' of Section 124A of the Railways Act. It is contended that in the emergent facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application of the claimant/ appellant.
8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the provision of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act wherein “untoward incident” has been defined as “accidental falling of any persons from a train carrying passengers”. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling on the train with a valid ticket. - 03 - Even if the findings of the learned Tribunal is considered then it is apparent that the deceased sustained injuries due to falling down while he was trying to re-board the bogey. Such falling down from the train comes within the meaning of 'untoward incident'. There is no finding of the Tribunal that the deceased had died of any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment in terms of the exception '(e)' of Section 124A. In the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC527 in similar circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, and purposive interpretation should be given for achieving the intent and object of the law. Accordingly, the interpretation which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred. The Divisional Railway Manager and the officials of the Railway Protection Force have reported that the deceased fell down due to his own negligence, but there is no material to show that the deceased died of any natural cause or sickness in terms of exception '(e)' of Section 124A of the Railways Act.
9. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, it is held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling on valid ticket and he fell down while re-boarding the compartment and the case of the claimant/ appellant is not covered under exception 'e' of Section 124A. It is an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 is hereby set aside and the respondent-railway authorities are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment, to the appellant/ claimant.
10. With the said direction and observation, this appeal stands allowed. (AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-