Manorama Nath Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

M.M. Das, J.

1. The claimant-appellant filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for award of compensation on account of death of her husband-Batakrushna Nath, who died on 26.08.2000 at Kapilas Road Railway Station. The Tribunal having rejected such application by order dated 02.03.2006 passed in O.A. No.31 of 2001, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The appellant’s case before the Tribunal was that the deceased came to Kapilas Road Railway Station to proceed to Cuttack for business purpose. He purchased a ticket bearing no.33834 at about 6.45 A.M. on the fateful day and waited for the arrival of the train. As the train was getting delayed, he made enquires and was told that the train was running late. The train arrived 25 minutes late and was expected to leave after five minutes. But, it again got delayed in the said Railway Station allegedly for some electrical problems. The deceased was at the door of the compartment to board the same. He was trying to get inside and he came in contact with naked electric wire and was electrocuted, as a result of which, he sustained burn injuries and was thrown outside the bogie due to the electric shock. On account of the hue and cry raised by the passengers, the train stopped after 100 meters. The deceased was taken to SCB Medical Collect and Hospital, Cuttack by the GRP and was declared dead.

3. The railway authorities filed their written statement before the Tribunal denying the assertions made in the claim application and, inter alia, stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of any running train carrying passengers and the alleged accident does not come under the purview of “untoward incident”. It was further stated that on 26.08.2000 at about 6 A.M. one person died outside the platform no.4near the board showing the name of the station due to the electric shock from a electric pole and the brother of the deceased has submitted an F.I.R. with the GRP to that effect. The Booking Office at Kapilas Road Station is on Platform No.1. There is no electrical system as well as electrical multiple unit train at this station. Thus, it was pleaded that the claimant has made a false allegation of electrocution inside the compartment.

4. Evidence was led by the claimant-appellant as well as the respondent-Railways. Documents were exhibited, such as, Post Mortem Report, inquest report, the letter requesting for Post Mortem, the F.I.R. lodged by the brother of the deceased, Xerox copy of the ticket no.33834 from Kapilas to Cuttack in second class ordinary compartment, the final report of the police and the certificate of death. The appellant stated in the evidence on affidavit that her husband was a bona fide passenger of Howrah-Puri passenger on 26.08.2000. He died in the vicinity of railway area and inside the platform having valid train ticket. He was a hawker and used to travel daily, by train, for business purpose. On the date of accident, he had told the appellant that he was proceeding to Cuttack.

5. The leaned Tribunal on analyzing the evidence adduced by both the parties came to a finding that the deceased died on the platform due to electrocution by coming in contact with an electric pole erected on platform no.4 and but not as a result of falling down from the compartment due to electrocution. According to the Tribunal, the case does not attract the provision of section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 and, therefore, the claim is not entertainable.

6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways urged that the claim is one under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 for compensation on account of untoward incident and untoward incident does not cover such an incident by which the husband of the appellant died.

7. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, on the contrary, submitted that even admitting the finding of facts by the learned Tribunal, it would be seen that the accident by which the husband of the appellant died will come under the definition of untoward incident for which the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the appellant.

8. It is, therefore, now an admitted case that the deceased died due to electrocution on the platform of Kapilas Road Railway Station on 26.08.2000 on account of electrocution having come in contact with an electric pole inside the platform. For deciding the present case, it would be apt to quote section 124-A of the Railways Act, which is 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 dependant 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 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 died 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 purpose of this section, “passenger” includes-

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]”

9. Untoward incident has been defined in Clause-(c) of section 123 of the Railways Act as follows:

“123. Definitions- xxx xxx xxx

[(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.]”

If at all the death of the husband of the appellant can be construed to be an untoward incident, it can only be under Sub-clause-(2) of Clause-(c) of section 123 of the Railways Act.

10. It is needless to mention that the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and such legislation should always receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. With this in mind, the facts of this case should be examined to arrive at a conclusion as to weather the respondent would be liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased.

11. At the outset, it would be seen that a ticket number was given by the claimant, which was stated to have been purchased by the deceased. The witness examined on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal was the best person to produce materials to show that such a ticket was not sold on the date of the accident. Even a Xerox copy of the ticket was produced by the claimant before the Tribunal as would be evident from the impugned judgment even though purchase of such ticket was not mentioned in the evidence on affidavit filed by the claimant-appellant. In the case of Nridhanya Devi V. Union of India, 2003 (3) TSC 187 relied upon by the appellant, the Gauhati High Court was dealing with an appeal against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, where the claim application was dismissed primarily on the ground that the deceased died in a bus accident and not railway accident and the facts of the said case disclosed that on account of flood the passengers in Kamrup Express could not be carried beyond Gouripur in the District of Dhubri and the Railway Authorities had to carry the passengers by certain buses including the bus in which the deceased was traveling on the date of the accident, which met with an accident with another bus resulting the death of two persons including the son of the claimant. The Gauhati High Court on such facts came to the conclusion as follows:-

“In the light of the aforementioned provisions and the points raised, we are of the considered view that the claimant is entitled to the grant of compensation on account of the death of her son. There cannot be any dispute that accident means an accident of the nature which has been described under section 124. However, a combined reading of all the provisions reproduced above leaves no manner or doubt that if the accident of a bus hired by the railway authorities takes place, it would be, for the purpose of compensation, termed as a railway accident. Section 124 lays down that if an accident occurs in the course of working a railway, the railway administration shall be liable to pay compensation to such extent as is prescribed. Section 2 defines certain words. In its sub-section (31), Clause (e) as has been reproduced above clearly defines as to what does railway mean. Railway includes all vehicles which are used on any road for the purpose of traffic of a railway or hired or worked by a railway. In the instant case, the bus in question having been hired by the railway for carrying the passengers, the bus would be deemed to be included in the vehicles of the railway. If section 124 is read alone without reading section 2(31) (e), the counsel for the Railways would probably be correct in his argument but no harmonious construction being given to both the provisions of sections 124 and 2(31) (e), the necessary and inevitable result which follows is that an accident which has taken place between the bus which is hired by the Railways with another bus it would be called railway accident and nothing more and nothing short”.

Holding thus the said High Court allowed the prayer for award of compensation.

12. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned senior counsel further referred to an unreported decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A Philoma Dya Thressiamma and anr. V. Indian Railway delivered on 5th February, 2007 in W.P.(C) No.13658 of 2006, where the Kerala High Court referring to the explanation to section 124A of the Railway Act held that from the said explanation, it is clear that passenger is given a wide meaning to cover even a person who holds a platform ticket, which means that for any person who suffers injuries or death in the railway premises and whose presence is authorized by the railways, the railways is bound to compensate him as a passenger. The Kerala High Court was dealing with the case of a potter who died in the railway station due to an accident on the platform while pulling trolley along with other potters and due to such accident, the deceased died on account of falling on the railway track on which a goods train was passing.

13. Though on the facts of the case before the Gauhati High Court, which was in relation to an accident between two busses, one of which was hired by the railways to carry passengers to the station on principle, I do not agree with the view of the Gauhati High Court that such an accident would come under the Railways Act rather than coming under the Mother Vehicles Act, but, agreeing with the view of the Kerala  High Court, I am of the considered opinion/conclusion that the death of the deceased in the instant case would come under the definition of an untoward incident though technically the deceased did not meet his death due to accident falling from a train carrying passengers.

14. In view of the above findings and interpretations, it is apparent that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that the incident does not come under the definition of ‘untoward incident’ and the appellant-claimant is not entitled to any compensation. The said impugned order/award is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed directing the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) as per the schedule in the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 along with 6% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of deposit, to the claimant-appellant. Such amount shall be deposited before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar within a period of eight weeks hence, who shall disburse the same to the claimant on proper identification.

15. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without cost.

Appeal allowed.