Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Urmil Gupta and ors. - Court Judgment

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

1. Respondents had filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench being case No.QA-II/67/1997 for death of Rajinder Kumar husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 and 3. The claim was allowed by the Tribunal and Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded as, compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the appellants.

2. The case of the respondents is that Rajinder Kumar met with an accident while travelling in Inter City Train which was on its way to Rohtak-Jind from Delhi-Bahadurgarh on 22.9.96 to 3.13 p.m. It was stated that the deceased was hit by pole (signal) which was quite adjacent to the railway line and due to its situation many accidents occurred at that place. The deceased received fatal injuries because of the accident and hence a petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

3. Upon notice being served, the appellants had filed written statement in which they have denied that the deceased died in a train accident. It is further contended that the alleged incident was not a train accident within the meaning of Section 124/124A of the Railway Act. It is also contended that the signal was affixed as per schedule of dimensions. It is also denied that many accidents had taken place due to the said signal as alleged. It is contended that the alleged accident was self invited one and the deceased died due to his own criminal act. It is also denied that the signal was closed to the railway line and hence the respondents are not entitled to the compensation. The other contentions were also taken, such as, the deceased was not bona fide passenger etc.

4. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

'1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of accident in question? OPA

2. Whether the accident in question falls within the purview of Section 124/124A of the Railway Act, 1989? OPA

3. To what amount of compensation, if any, the applicants are entitled to get from the respondent railways? OPA.

4. Relief.

5. The Tribunal answered issues No.l to 3 in the affirmative and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was bona fide passenger. It is in defence of the respondents that Ticket Checker had come in the compartment and had checked the ticket of the deceased. It is not shown by the appellants that this contention could not be correct. The Tribunal has held that the appellants had not adduced any evidence that the Ticket Checker was not travelling in the said train for the purpose of checking tickets and has held that the case put forth by the appellants was not correct. In view of the reasons given by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to assailed the finding given by the Tribunal. Hence I do not find it proper to disturb the finding given on issue No.1 by the learned Tribunal.

8. So far as issue No.2 is concerned, the question is whether the accident falls within the purview ofSection 124 or 124A'of the Act. Section 124 of the Act reads as under:-

'124. Extent of liability:- when in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one train is a train carrying . passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitled a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall not with standing 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 a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.

Explanation:- xxxxxxxxxxxxx

9. From the underlined portion of the Act it is clear that the entitlement of the passenger to recover damages would arise in case of an accident as mentioned in this section i.e.:

(i) collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers.

(ii) derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers:

The present case cannot fall under these two clauses.

10. Section 124A of the Act is as under:

'124-A 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 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 incidents;

Provided that

(a) xxxxxx

(b) xxxxxx

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) xxxxxx

(e) xxxxxx

Explanation: xxxxxxx

(i) xxxxxxx

(ii) xxxxxxx

11. It can be seen that this Section 124A of the Act thus provides for damages in an untoward incident. Moreover, the highlighted portion of this section shows that there may not be any wrongful act neglect or default oh the part of the Railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has killed to maintain an action and recover damages. However, there are exception mentioned in the proviso.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the case is covered under pro-viso(c) of this Section 124A of the Act because it was the criminal act on the part of the deceased himself which led to the causing of the accident. It can be found that in the written statement there is a contention that the deceased died due to his own criminal act. Unfortunately, there is no issue framed on this point. I find that this is a lacuna which can be filled only by framing the issue and remanding the case to the learned Tribunal for the decision of the same.

13. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal has observed as below:

'In view of out-findings on the above issues, the applicants are entitled to receive compensation on the death of Shri Rajinder Kumar in a train accident. As per Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 a maximum of Rs. 2,00,000/- have been provided in case of death. The applicant are thus entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation from the respondent railway administration and we order accordingly. Issue is decided accordingly.

14. With respect to the teamed Tribunal I am not in a position to accept the reasons given for coming to the conclusion that Rs. 2,00,000/- can be awarded. Section 124 of Act and 124A of the Act (supra) makes the railway administration liable to pay compensation;

(1) to such extent as may be prescribed.

(2) to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death.

15. According to Section 2(30) of the Act 'prescribed' means, prescribed by rule made under the Act. The Tribunal has held that as per the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990, a maximum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been prescribed for death and thus, the respondents are entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. However, as per Section 124A of the Act this cannot be the meaning attributed to the wording of Section 124 of the Act. When the maximum is prescribed, it is also prescribed that the damages awarded can be to the extent only for the loss occasioned. It is not a fixed sum pre-scribed. This is question of fact to be decided and this is not decided. Therefore, I find that issues No.2 and 3 require to be decided afresh. In view of the above findings, parties may find it necessary to lead evidence. Therefore, maintaining the finding on issue No.1, I find it proper to remand the case to the learned Tribunal for taking decision on issues No.2 and 3 afresh as stated above.

16. As a result this appeal is allowed. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is upheld. However, finding of the Tribunal on issues No.2 and 3 are set aside. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is also set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for taking decision on issues No.2 and 3 afresh after giving a chance to the parties to lead evidence if they so desire.