Patna High Court - OrdersNeelam Devi vs Union Of India on 16 September, 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         MA No.457 of 2004
                              NEELAM DEVI
                                   Versus
                            UNION OF INDIA
                              -----------


7/   16.09.2008This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant

                  Neelam Devi for setting aside the order dated 23.04.2004 passed by

                  the Hon‟ble Vice Chairman Mr. V.K. Sahay and Hon‟ble Member

                  (Judicial) Dr. G.R. Sharma of Railway Claim Tribunal, Mahendru

                  Ghat, Patna, in Claim Application No. O.A. No. 9800068, whereby

                  and whereunder the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application of

                  the appellant.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

                  counsel for the Union of India through General Manager, N.E.

                  Railway, Gorakhpur.The application was filed by the appellant before the

                  Tribunal seeking compensation underSection 16of the Railway

                  Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 on account of death of her husband

                  namely, Late Mushafir Ram in an "untoward incident" when he

                  boarded in Train No. 236 Down on 12.01.1997 from Chauradano to

                  Bairagnia station. As per her case, the train was abnormally over-

                  crowded, as a result of which her husband was standing near the

                  gate, when due to heavy rush and jerk of the train, he accidentally

                  fell down therefrom near Gurahanwa Halt thereby sustaining

                  grievous injuries resulting into his death. It was also pleaded by the2applicant/appellant that deceased Late Mushafir Ram was holding

second class ticket from Chauradano to Bairagania which was lost

due to the said accident. The application was filed by wife of the

deceased.The respondent Railway filed their written statement

stating therein that the deceased was trying to get down from the

running train at Gurhanwa Halt knowingly well that Train No. 236

Down has no stoppage there, as a result of which he got injured and

died.It has further been stated on behalf of the Railways

that application was not maintainable either in law or on facts and so

also denied status of the deceased as bona fide passenger.The following issues were framed before the

Tribunal.1. Whether      the   deceased was a         bona   fide
                   passenger?2. Whether the incident covered underSection 123
                   (C)of the Railways Act, 1989 as untoward
                   incident?3. Whether the Respondent is protected underSection 124(a) (c)of the Railways Act. 1989?4. Relief?The Tribunal after considering the facts and

evidence on record has decided Issue No. 1 so far deceased being a

bona fide passenger was concerned in favour of the claimant. But,

Issues No. 2 and 3 have been decided against the claimant by

holding that act of the deceased was nothing less than self inflicted3injury which does not fall under the expression "Accidental falling

of any passengers" used in definition „Untoward Incident‟ in sub

clause (2) (c) ofSection 123of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act).A decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court

reported in 2004(1) ALT 100(FB) has been relied upon dealing with

the provisions ofSection 123,124and124(A)of the Railways Act,

and in the last the Tribunal concluded that applicant/appellant had

failed to prove that deceased Mushafir Ram died in untoward

incident in terms ofSection 123(C)of the Railways Act, 1989 and

thereafter Issue No. 4 was decided against the claimant and

dismissed.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

the learned Tribunal has not considered her case in right perspective

rather abruptly came to the conclusion that claimant failed to prove

"untoward incident."Reliance has been placed in Hon‟ble Apex Court

judgment dated 05.05.2008 inCase Union of India Vs. Prabhakar

Vijaya Kumar & Ors.passed in Appeal (Civil) 6898 of 2002,

wherein it has been held that:"Since the provision for compensation

in theRailways Actis 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 later of

abovementioned two interpretations i.e. one which advances the

object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred in4Kunal Singh vs. Union of India(2003) 4 SCC 524.The brief facts of this referred case is that a claim

petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam

Bench by the husband, mother and minor son of one Smt. Abja Devi

who died in a train accident, and the Claims Tribunal disallowed the

claim, but the appeal againstthe said decisionwas allowed by the

Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2001 and

compensation of Rs. 2 lacs (Two lacs) with interest @ 12% per

annum from the date of payment was granted. Aggrieved, the appeal

was by the Union of the India.There was no dispute so far passenger, being bona

fide, was concerned and the deceased Abja Devi was found falling

from Parasuram Express who died when the train was moving. It

was a case that a girl was running towards a train and in the process

of entering into the train she fell down from the running train and

she met her accident.Of course, the Tribunal held that it was not within

the meaning of „Untoward Incident‟ as expressed insection 123 (C)of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an accidental falling of a

passenger from the train carrying passengers.But in the appeal, the Kerala High Court was of the

view that the deceased sustained injuries in her anxiety to get into

the train which was moving, and, so, deceased came within the

expression „accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying

passengers‟ which is an „untoward incident‟, as defined inSection5123 (C)of the Railways Act, 1989.The Hon‟ble Apex Court has, thus, held in Para 10

which is quoted below:"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 inSection 123 (C)of the Railways Act."It has also been held in Paras 12, 13 and 14 which
are quoted hereinbelow:(12) 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 statute should be given a liberal and not
literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.Vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647 (para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. Vs.
Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11),

                 (13) The principles of statutory construction are well
settled. Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social
welfare legislation and human rights‟ legislation are not to be put in
Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lillputian dimensions. In construing
these legislations the imposture of literal construction must be
avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication must be recognized
and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned with the „colour‟,
the „content‟ and the „context‟ of such statutes (we have borrowed
the words from Lord Wilberforce‟s opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds).
In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that law is not to
be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquire
beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in which
they are set; the law is not to be interpreted purely on internal
linguistic considerations.In one of the cases cited before us, that is,Surender      Kumar Verma vs. Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-LabourCourt we had occasion to say:"Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the
interpretation of „bread and butter‟ statutes. Welfare statutes must,
of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is
designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is
not to make inroads by making etymological excursions."Francis Bennion in his Statutory Interpretation
Second Edn. Has dealt with the Functional Construction Rule in Part
XV of his book. The nature of purposive construction is dealt with
in Part XX at p. 659 thus:6"A purposive construction of an enactment is one
which gives effect to the legislative purpose by(a)                   following the literal meaning of
                                      the enactment where that
                                      meaning is in accordance with
                                      the legislative purpose (in this
                                      Code called a purposive-and-literal construction), or
                (b)                   Applying a strained meaning
                                      where the literal meaning is not
                                      in accordance with the
                                      legislative purpose (in the Code
                                      called a purposive and strained
                                      construction)"."Purposive Construction" in contrast with literal
construction. The learned author has observed as under:"Contrast with literal construction - Although the
term „purposive construction‟ is not new, its entry into fashion
betokens a swing by the appellate courts away from literal
construction. Lord Diplock said in 1975: „If one looks back to the
actual decisions of the [House of Lords] on questions of statutory
construction over the last 30 years one cannot fail to be struck by the
evidence of a trend away from the purely literal towards the
purposive construction of statutory provisions‟. The matter was
summed up Lord Diplock in this way-I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction
where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language used
would lead to results which would clearly defeat the purposes of the
Act. But in doing so the task on which a court of justice is engaged
remains one of the construction, even where this involves reading
into the Act words which are not expressly included in it."(14) In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive
meaning to the expression „accidental falling of a passenger from a
train carrying passengers‟ inSection 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 traveling 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 theRailways 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 traveling with
a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls7down during the process. In other words, a purposive, a not literal,
interpretation should be given to the expression.The Hon‟ble Apex Court has, thus, held that Smt.

Abja died which is covered by proviso toSection 123(C)of the Act.In the present fact and circumstance, it could be said

that more or less it was the same position with the deceased Late

Mushafir Ram, who has been held travelling with bona fide ticket

and he had met his tragic end which could be covered within the

meaning of „untoward incident‟. In Para 21 of the aforesaid

judgment, it has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as follows:"The principle of strict liability (also called no fault

liability) was thus evolved, which was an exception to the general

principle in the law of torts that there is no liability without fault."It is a well-discussed judgment and, perhaps, it was

not cited because of its being delivered on 05.05.2008. So, applying

the same principle in view of similarity of facts and circumstances

of the present appeal, the impugned order requires interference, so it

is held that impugned order is not sustainable in law as also on facts.

The death of deceased Late Mushafir Ram in the context of the

matter could be said to be coming within the purview of „untoward

incident‟. The age of the deceased as per petition was 25 years at the

time of accident who was earning his livelihood by way of private

teaching and amount of compensation was claimed for Rs.

2,00,000/-    (Two       lacs).   Such   evidence    on    the   part      of

claimant/appellant led in course of proceeding in the Tribunal and

has not been controverted.8Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set

          aside.Thus, the said amount i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakh

          only) as claimed is directed to be paid by the Union of India

          (Railways) to the claimant/appellant within one month from the date

          of passing of this order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum

          shall be realised from the respondent.With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is

          allowed.Sanjeet                                    (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)