JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order D/ - 27-8-1979 passed in Claims Case No. 66 of 1977 Km. Savitri Roy v. Railways Administration by Ad hoc Claims Commissioner (Rlys), Allahabad, dismissing the claim for compensation of Km. Savitri Roy.
2. According to the admitted facts of the case, a collision took place between 103 UP Deluxe Express train and G.P.C. Special at Naini Railway Station on 10-10-77 at 0015 hours as a result of which S/Sri R.N. Roy and Nand Kumar were admittedly killed while S/Sri H.N. Bajpai, Sukhdeo Prasad and Madan Gopal admittedly sustained injuries. It is also admitted case of the parties that late Sri R.N. Roy, who was T.T.E. was on duty at the relevant time on 103 UP Deluxe Express Train which was involved in the accident. Kumari Savitri Roy (Since deceased) filed petition claiming herself to be unmarried sister and heir of late Sri R.N. Roy for grant of compensation u/S. 82A of the Indian Railways Act for the loss occasioned by his death. The Railway Administration filed written statement and resisted claim only on the ground that late R.N. Roy being a crew in 103 UP Deluxe Express Train on 10-10-77 to perform his duty was not a bona fide passenger and consequently the application was not maintainable under Section 82A of the Indian Railway Act. The Claims Commissioner came to the conclusion that late R.N. Roy was member of the crew and was not passenger in 103 UP Deluxe Express Train and consequently the application u/S. 82A of the Indian Railways Act was not maintainable. In the result the application of Km. Savitri Roy was dismissed by a consolidated judgment dated 27-3-1979. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order Kumari Savitry Roy (since deceased) has filed this appeal u/S. 82F(2) of the Indian Railways Act. Kumari Savitri Roy died during the pendency of the appeal and Hardhan Banerji, in place of Savitri Roy, has been impleaded as appellant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the word 'passenger' used under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act does not necessarily mean the passenger travelling with a ticket. The said word has got a very comprehensive meaning and includes railway employee who has lost his life in collision of trains including the train in which he was employed and the application under S. 82-A of the Indian Railways Act was maintainable. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Devi reported in 1939 ACJ 896.
5. In the aforecited case also, collision had taken place between two trains and Railway Engine Driver as well as Assistant Engine Driver lost their lives. The widows of the deceased preferred claim petitions separately for awarding of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively in respect of death of their husbands. The Claim Commissioner awarded Rs. 50,000/- each to both the widows as compensation. It was against the aforesaid orders, Union of India filed the writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court after discussing the provisions of S. 82-A read with S. 82-H of the Indian Railways Act and referring to few rulings, came to the conclusion that one part of a statute need not to be read in isolation, and the primary consideration for a court interpreting a particular provision ought to be to advance the object and purpose of enactment even if it departs from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their clear meaning called for to prevent injustice. The Division Bench thus held that it could not be said that the deceased Railway Engine Driver and Assistant Engine Driver were totally unauthorised persons nor their travel could be said to be unauthorised in any way. It was thus concluded in para 12 that even by reading of S. 82-A their remains no doubt that any person either receiving injury or otherwise can claim compensation. In the result, the claim petition filed by the respondents was held to be maintainable and correctly allowed. From the ratio of the said ruling, it is evident that the word 'person' according to S. 82-A(1) read with S. 82-H includes employee of the Railways also and he cannot be treated as unauthorised person travelling by the train. This ruling supports the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. No other authority contrary to the aforesaid ruling has been cited before me.
6. A perusal of the scheme of the Indian Railways Act goes to show that a person, who was travelling in a train without a proper pass, ticket or permission, as required by Ss. 66 and 68, is not a passenger within the meaning of S. 82-A of the Railways Act. The Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation who was travelling without a ticket or without permission.
7. In the case of T.T.E. who was on duty at the relevant time, it cannot be said that he was travelling by that train without permission and in any view of the matter he cannot be treated as a unauthorised passenger. The controversy whether a railway servant travelling on duty is a passenger for the purposes of the liability of the Railways has been set at rest by the Railways Act 1989 wherein the explanation to S. 124 of the Railways Act 1989 corresponding to old Sec. 82-A of the Railways Act, includes a Railway servant on duty as passenger. Thus, the petition of the claimant for compensation under Sec. 82-A was maintainable and the Claims Commissioner committed error in taking contrary view.
8. In view of the legal position as discussed above, the judgment and order of the Claims Commissioner, suffers from infirmities and it cannot be sustained.
9. Now, the question that arises for determination is as to what amount of compensation should be allowed to the appellant.
10. The petitioner Km. Savitri Roy was an unmarried sister of the deceased R.N. Roy. Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as amended by Act 8 of 1959 includes an unmarried sister as dependant and the explanation to the said section clearly states that this definition shall apply in respect of compensation to be awarded under S. 82-A of the Indian Railways Act.
11. Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989, now specifically includes unmarried sister as "dependant". Section 123 of the said Act provides extent of liability and as already stated the explanation to S. 124 includes a Railway servant on duty as "passenger" for the purpose of the extent of liability under Section 124 of the Act. The extent of liability of Railway Administration in respect of the accident of trains carrying passenger has varried from time to time. Previously compensation payable was Rs. 20,000/-, then it was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/ - and now in case of death amount of compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 1 lac in part 1 of the Railway Accidents Compensation Rules 1989 and also to Rs. one lac in part II for injuries. The accident in the present case had taken place on 10-10-1977 and, therefore, the rate of compensation Rules of 1950. The rule 6 of the said Rules prescribes the amount of compensation payable in respect of death to Rs. 50,000/- as specified in part I of the Schedule. The learned counsel for the appellant, thus argued that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as amount of compensation in respect of death of Shri R. N. Roy, who was on duty at the relevant time and was travelling as authorised passenger with permission. This has not been controverted or opposed by the learned Standing Counsel.
12. Thus, the amount of compensation payable to Km. Savitri Roy who was unmarried sister and dependant of late R. N. Roy, and after her death, to her legal heir Hardhan Banerji, is Rs. 50,000/-.
13. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and the appellant is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- from the Railway Administration.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that interest should also be awarded to the appellant as claimant was deprived of the amount which was payable to her as compensation to which the claimant was legitimately entitled. Learned counsel cited the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, reported in AIR 1992 SC 732, in support of his contention. The aforesaid ruling relates to a case wherein the appellant challenged the validity of the award which were made rule of the court. It was held by the Supreme Court in para 45:
"Where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and that dispute (along with the claim for principal amount or independently) is referred to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendente lite. This is for the reason that in such a case it must be presumed that interest was an implied term of the agreement between the parties and therefore when the parties refer all their disputes or refer the dispute as to interest as such to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest. This does not mean that in every case the arbitrator should necessarily award interest pendente lite. It is a matter within his discretion to be exercised in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the ends of justice in view."
15. Learned Special Counsel appearing for the Railways, however has not disputed the said authority but has urged that this discretion to award interest does not arise in the present case as the legal position was not settled at that time and it was the Claims Commissioner who had disallowed the compensation of the claimant who was not held to be passenger within the meaning of Section 82-A of the Railways Act. Now the position is settled and the explanation of Section 124 of the Railways Act 1989 includes a Railway Servant on duty as 'passenger' in Section 82-A.
16. I find force in the submission of the learned Special Counsel for the Railways. However, the interest will now be payable by-the Railways if, they fail to pay this amount of compensation within two months from the date when a certified copy of this judgment is produced before the Railway Administration.
17. No other point was argued. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 27-3-1979 passed by the Claims Commissioner Railways, Allahabad in Claim Case No. 66 of 1977 -- Km. Savitri Roy v. The Railway Administration is set aside and claim petition of Km. Savitri Roy is held to be maintainable and is allowed for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. The Railway Administration is directed to pay this amount of compensation to the appellant, who is legal heir of the deceased Km. Savitri Roy, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order before it. In case the said amount is not paid within a period of two months, then the Railway Administration will be liable to pay interest from this date at the rate of 12% per annum.
18. Appeal allowed.