Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Goyal - Court Judgment

J.C. Verma, J.

1. The Union of India through its General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai V.T. has filed the present Civil Misc. Appeal against the order dated 6-8-1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur by which order the Tribunal, Jaipur by which order the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 18,000/ as compensation.

2. On 23-6-1998 the respondent claimant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal aged about 30 years of Jaipur was travelling with her husband and two minor daughters in train No. 9023 Dn. Mumbai Central and Firozabad Janata Express when she was attacked by some intruder in the train and her gold chain which she was wearing around her neck was snatched. She is said to have sustained aloss of Rs. 12,000/-. She has claimed the said amount along with interest under the provisions of the Railways Act.

3. It was the objection of the present appellant that no such claim application could be preferred or was maintainable under the Railways Act. The parties had fed their evidence. The Tribunal had framed as many as five issues and ultimately vide impugned order had come to a finding that the claimant was entitled to the total amount of Rs. 18,000/-for the proved loss of her gold chain.

4. The Tribunal had framed the following issues :-

(1) Whether the applicant was passenger of train No. 9023 Dn. on 23-6-1998?

(2) Whether the alleged incident does not fall under the definition of Section 123 (c) the Railways Act, 1989?

(3) Whether the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant ?

(4) To what amount of compensation, if any the applicant is entitled?

(5) Relief?

5. On issue No. 1 the Tribunal had come to the finding that the respondent was travelling along with her family from Bharatpur to Delhi in Coach No. WR- 5359 on second class ticket No. 64083 and 64084 dated 23-6-1998. The original tickets were produced on record. Finding was given that she was a passenger in the train.

6. On issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 it was found that when the train had reached between Mathura and Chhata, some miscreant holding the handle of the gate of the coach made a violent attack on her from the window and jumped from the train after snatching gold chain from her neck. Incident was not denied by the respondent, rather it was pleaded that the alleged incident was not an 'untoward incident' and therefore the railway administration was not liable to pay compensation.

7. The following contentions are being raised by the counsel for appellant:--

(i) The Railway is not liable to pay any compensation for damages. Loss or injury as has been narrated by claimant and that the provisions of Section 123(c)(ii) and Section 124-A of Railways Act are not applicable in the present case:

(ii) If at all any action can be preferred against the Railways is only on the ground of sustaining any bodily injury and not otherwise.

8. After hearing counsel for the appellant 1 do not find any merit in the submissions so made and the misc. appeal is to be dismissed at admission stage.

9. The untoward incident has been defined in Sub-section (3) of Section 123, prescribing the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity, at any person in or 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 Railway Station. Section 124-A provides compensation on account of untoward incident; when in the course of working in a Railway an 'untoward incident' occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant or 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. The relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced as under :--

123. Definitions - in this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires --

(a) --

(b) -

(c) 'Untoward incident' means --

(1)

(i) _

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the the commission of robbery or dacoity, or

(iii)

by any person in or 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 railway station, or

(2)

Section 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident -- When in the course of working in a Railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act neglect or default on the part of Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant on 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.'

The robbery has been defined under Indian Penal Code, which reads as under ;--

'Section 390. Robbery _

In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery.--Theft is 'robbery' if. In order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery.-- Extortion is 'robbery' if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.'

10. A combined reading of Section 123 and 124-A of the Railways Act is that the intention of the legislature was to compensate a person who suffers the loss/Injury/ death while travelling in train or even in the precincts of Railways under the licence after obtaining required ticket. The Railways has got Its own separate police force called Railway Protection Force, even the offence committed on such precincts of Railways can also be tried by Railway Magistrate duly appointed in this respect. The Railway is duty bound to see or make all arrangements of protection of the passengers for their safety till their destination. So far, a passenger is travelling with valid ticket, if suchpassenger is attacked and robbed of its valuables and If such incident stood tried before the tribunal or competent court by way of leading of cogent evidence, such passenger on submitting such proof can definitely maintain a claim against the Railways as such incident would fall under the definition of untoward incident. Such 'untowards incident' does involve an element of some violence or threat of violence. The contention of the counsel for appellant that in case the passenger is not bodily injured, no such application could be maintained is to be rejected straightway as by accepting such a contention it would mean that in robbery or theft such 'untoward incident' must'involve actually bodily injury or hurt and in that situation according to counsel for Railways such an application would be maintainable, otherwise not. Even though Section 124-A of the Railways Act does mention the word injury but such injury cannot be said to be bodily injury only. Such injury includes any type of violence minor or major or hurt or threat of such hurt or injury which ultimately results in robbing the passenger; Particularly when the robbery can be caused under the fear of Instant death or hurt as has been defined in Section 390 of Indian Penal Code. It is not at all essential that the passenger must also physically bleed before being robbed and only then the application for compensation is maintainable.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any Infirmity in the impugned award. There is no merit in the misc. appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant had handed over a cheque of Rs. 22,320/-dated 9-11-2000 in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Goyal to claimant in the Court itself, which Includes the interest. The counsel for respondent is satisfied. The order of the Tribunal stands executed. No other amount is to be paid to claimants.

13. With the above observations, the Misc. appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.