IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.768 OF 2010 (RCT) BETWEEN:
1. SMT SHANTHAMMA @ VASANTHA, W/O.LATE SIDDAPPA @ SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
2. KUMARI SOWMYA, D/O.LATE SIDDAPPA @ SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
3. MASTER NAVEEN, S/O.LATE SIDDAPPA @ SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER – APPLICANT NO.1.
4. SMT.GOWRAMMA, W/O.LATE MAHALINGAPPA (MOTHER OF LATE SIDDAPPA SIDDARAJU) AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O.HALEBEEDU VILLAGE AND POST, BILAKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV ADVOCATE FOR SRI C.H.JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND:
UNION OF INDIA, REP BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI N S SANJAYGOWDA, ADVOCATE ) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2009 PASSED IN OA NO.28/2007 ON THE FILE OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 16 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and order dated 20.02.2009 passed in O.A. No.28/2007 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.
02. The facts leading to this appeal are that on 02.09.2001, the deceased Siddappa was traveling as authorized passenger in train No.266 from Kallur Yedahalli Halt Gate in order to go to Hampapura railway station. When the train was at Dornahalli railway station, he had got down from the train. While boarding the train again, accidentally he fell down and died due to severe injuries sustained in the said accident.
03. The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Siddappa under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The respondent resisted the claim petition contending that the alleged accident was due to the own negligence of the deceased as he was trying to board the moving train and thereby involved himself inviting the risk of the accident and not on account of any act of the railways. The said incident cannot be called as accident or untoward incident as it was only due to careless and negligent act of the deceased. Therefore, the respondent – railways is not liable for the self-inflicted injuries and death caused on account of the said injuries. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Was the deceased Siddappa a bonafide passenger by train No.266 Passenger on 02.09.2001?
2. Did the applicant suffer injuries and died late due to his own negligence as contended by respondent or was it an ‘accidental fall’ in terms of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
3. Are the applicants sole dependants of the deceased Siddappa entitled to claim compensation?
4. What order? What costs?
04. The wife of the deceased was examined as AW1 and 10 documents were marked. The respondent filed DRM’s report and no oral evidence was led. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
05. The learned counsel for the appellants would strenuously contend that the deceased had purchased Ticket No.34199 for Rs.5/- and he was a bonafide passenger traveling in the said train. On that day, he had got down from the bogie/compartment, as there was heavy rush in the train. While boarding the bogie/compartment, he accidentally fell down and sustained injuries, which resulted in his death. But, the Railway Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellants without any justification. Accidental falling of any passenger while boarding the train comes under the purview of untoward incident. Thus, the respondent becomes liable to pay the compensation even in such cases. In support of her contention, she has relied on the following decisions:
i. Union of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527; and ii. Union of India vs Rina Devi reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 507.
06. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the alleged accident was due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The distance between Kallur Yedahalli Halt Gate and Hampapura railway station is hardly 18 kms. The Dornahalli railway station is hardly at a distance of 10 km. from Kallur Yedahalli Halt Gate. Thus, there was no justifiable cause to get down from the train and risk himself. In view of Sections 153 and 154 of The Railways Act, 1989, the passengers are not expected to get down at the inbetween stations when the journey is too short. The decisions relied on by the counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of this case. There are no valid grounds to set aside the impugned order. As such, the appeal deserves to be rejected.
07. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, the claim of the appellants is rejected mainly on two grounds:
i. There was no necessity for the deceased to get down at Dornahalli railway station when he had just traveled 10 kms. Since he got down at Dornahalli railway station and again tried to board the moving train, he lost his life. Normally, when the trains are overcrowded, there would be no reason to get down at a small station like Dornahalli railway station, thereby, risking his life and also that of other genuine passengers. Therefore, the act of the deceased in getting down and boarding back the bogie/compartment at Dornahalli railway station, is an irresponsible act.
ii. Section 124-A of the Act does not implicate the liability on the railway administration to compensate persons who suffer injury or death as a reasonably expected consequence of their own culpable negligence, absence of foresight, expectation, prudence or circumspection. Section 123(c)(2) of the Act would amount to self-inflicted injury within the meaning of clause (b) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, since the injury sustained by the deceased in this case is self- inflicted disaster. The legal heirs are not entitled for the compensation.
08. The first and foremost contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has not at all considered the contents of the chargesheet and the ‘B’ report submitted by the police. The contents of the ‘B’ report clearly indicates that deceased Siddaraju @ Siddappa accidentally fell down while boarding the train and sustained injuries, which resulted in his death. The said report confirms that it was an accidental death.
09. In view of the rival contentions, the main controversy is that whether the death on account of the accident while boarding the train could be termed as ‘untoward incident’ or ‘self-inflicted disaster’.
10. The learned Tribunal is of the opinion that the act of the deceased in getting down and boarding the bogie /compartment at Dornahalli railway station is an irresponsible act, which disentitles the legal representatives from claiming compensation.
11. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the respondent relying on Sections 153 and 154 of the Railways Act, submitted that the passengers are not supposed to get down during short journey. Sections 153 and 154 of The Railways Act, 1989, reads as under:
“153. Endangering safety of persons traveling by railway by wilful act or omission:
If any person by any unlawful act or by any wilful omission or neglect, endangers or causes to be endangered the safety of any person traveling on or being upon any railway, or obstructs or causes to be obstructed or attempts to obstruct any rolling stock upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years.
154. Endangering safety of persons traveling by railway by rash or negligent act or omission:
If any person in a rash and negligent manner does not act, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person traveling or being upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
12. Even though, the aforesaid Sections speaks about endangering safety of persons traveling by railway by willful act / rash / negligent act / omission, there is no specific bar for the passengers from getting down at any station, other than place of destination, during short journey or long journey.
13. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is devoid of merits.
14. The next question that arises for consideration is whether there was negligence on the part of the deceased so as to hold that it was a self inflicted disaster. As such, the railways was not liable as per Section 124-A of the Railways Act. In this connection, two decisions are relied:
i. Union of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527; and “10. 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 in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers”, the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is 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 latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statue and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd. (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn.
12. It is well settled that if 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 statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority (AIR para 11), Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. (AIR para 13), S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager (SCC para 12).”
ii. Union of India vs Rina Devi reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 507.
25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.
Re: (iii) Burden of Proof When Body Found on Railway Premises – Definition of Passenger :
26. Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for death or injury of a ‘passenger’. In Raj Kumari (supra) referring to the scheme of Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since traveling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the railway administration to prove that passenger was not a bonafide passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. However, Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) held that initial onus to prove death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. However, such onus can shift on Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the claimant. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi High Court observed as follows :
“3(ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellants/claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the facts of a particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift on the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which has to be discharged is always on the railways and not on the claimants. I cannot agree to this proposition of law that the Railways have the onus to prove that a deceased was not a bonafide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways either under the Railways Act or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act & Rules or as per any judgment of the Supreme Court. No doubt, in the facts of the particular case, onus can be easily discharged such as in a case where deceased may have died at a place where he could not have otherwise been unless he was traveling in the train and in such circumstances depending on the facts of a particular case it may not be necessary to prove the factum of the deceased having a ticket because ticket as per the type of incident of death can easily be lost in an accident. I at this stage take note of a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case reported as Pyar Singh Vs. Union of India 2007 (8) AD Del. 262 which holds that it is the claimant upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I agree to this view and I am bound by this judgment and not by the ratio of the case of Leelamma (supra).”
15. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, it is clear that when a passenger falls down while trying to get into the train in either case, it amounts to an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers and hence it is an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one.
16. Even in the present case, the respondent – railways has not placed any satisfactory evidence to confirm that the deceased was reckless and negligent in boarding the train and it was a self-inflicted injury. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, the finding given by the Tribunal is erroneous and the finding on issue No.2 needs to be reconsidered.
17. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the deceased was the authorized passenger. As could be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has noticed that the deceased was in possession of ticket No.34199 dated 02.09.2001 valid for the journey from Kallur Yedahalli Halt Gate to Hampapura railway station dated 02.09.2001. Thus, it is evident that he was not an unauthorized or a ticketless passenger.
18. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Rina Devi, the claimant need not produce the ticket. The burden of proving that he had purchased the ticket may be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. As already stated above that in the present case, the deceased was holding a valid ticket on the date of the accident.
19. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, I am of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2009 passed in O.A. No.28/2007 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the finding on Issue No.2.
The Registry is directed to send back the lower court records.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ