JUDGMENT U.K. Dhaon and R.P. Yadav, JJ.
1. Heard Mr. Anil Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravindra Pratap Singh and Mr. P.P. Singh the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the judgment and award dated 6.1.2005, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow awarding compensation to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000 for the injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident dated 23.4.2003.
3. Sarita, the respondent was travelling by train 2TC passenger on 23.4.2003 from Balrai to Etawah with a valid journey ticket, which she had allegedly purchased from Railway Station, Balrai. She was thrown off the train on account of heavy rush of passengers, with the result, she became unconscious and in the meantime goods train passed from that very railway track, which amputated both her legs and three fingers of left hand. She was removed from railway line by G.R.P. personnel, who hospitalised her in District Hospital, Etawah, where she was medically treated. She filed claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which was contested by appellant railway administration on the ground that she did not fall from the train and her case was not covered by Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act.
4. The Claims Tribunal, on an appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the respondent was travelling with a valid ticket and she was thrown off the train on account of overcrowding and sustained injuries by another passing train from same railway line and that she was entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 and Rs. 1,20,000 under item No. 3 of Part II and item No. 8 of Part III of the Schedule prescribed in Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, but the Tribunal being empowered to award Rs. 4,00,000 only, awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the railway administration has preferred this appeal.
6. Finding recorded by the Tribunal that the respondent was travelling with a valid ticket is not disputed by the learned Counsel for appellant in view of the overwhelming nature of the evidence which was adduced by the respondent before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel has submitted that this cannot be said to be an untoward incident due to train carrying passenger as no injury was caused from the accidental falling from the passenger train and that the respondent was herself responsible for the injuries as she fell from the train on account of her own criminal act. He has submitted that the respondent was most likely travelling on the foot board and was not able to get in the coach. She did so at own risk and no liability can be fastened for her accidental fall on the Railways. When there was so much overcrowding and the doors of the coach were open and she could not go inside the compartment, she could not have travelled in this way and by travelling in this manner she not only endangered the safety of herself but also endangered the safety of other passengers and her this act amounted to an offence punishable under Sections 153 and 156 of the Railways Act.
7. Learned Counsel has referred to the case of Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh 1984 ACJ 719 (SC), wherein it was held that "the passenger fell down and sustained injury while train was being shunted. Railways was held not liable to pay any compensation". This authority lays down the law with reference to Section 82-A of the old Railways Act, whereas the said Act has been substituted by the Railways Act, 1989 and the new provisions in Section 123(c)(2) have been introduced. Learned Counsel has also referred to the case of Union of India v. Jameela 2004 (22) LCD 986, wherein it was held that "the deceased passenger was standing/going at the open door of the running train without any precaution or safety which resulted into his death". It was held that the deceased acted in a negligent manner and he was not entitled to any compensation as it was not a case of 'untoward incident'.
8. 'Untoward incident' has been defined under Section 123(c) of the Act which covers the accidental falling of any passenger from the train carrying passengers. Thus, a passenger who is travelling in a passenger train if falls from the train accidentally it would be 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act and such a person would be entitled to compensation barring the cases of exceptions as provided under Section 124A of the Act.
9. Section 124A provides for a compensation 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 be liable to pay the compensation notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, to such extent as may be prescribed for loss occasioned by the death or injury to, a passenger, as a result of such untoward incident.
10. The liability of Railways to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Act is irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of railway administration. Once it is held or proved that there was an untoward incident, the railway administration is liable to pay the compensation. The exceptions from payment of compensation by the railway administration in the cases of 'untoward incidents' are provided in proviso to Section 124A, which says that the railway administration shall not be liable to pay compensation on account of the death if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by him; self-inflicted injury; own criminal act; or any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; or any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
11. The Railways can escape liability of payment of compensation only if the aforesaid circumstances are proved by them. Incidences mentioned in proviso to Section 124A of the Act being the exceptions to the general rule for payment of compensation for the death, the burden lies on the Railways to prove any of these circumstances, which may fall within the exceptions. In the absence of any proof by the railway administration, it shall be presumed that accident occurred on account of untoward incident.
12. Undisputedly, the respondent had fallen down from the train while travelling in the passenger train. It is also undisputed that she became unconscious after falling from the train and another passing train amputated her both legs and three fingers of left hand. Argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that the injuries were not sustained by the respondent on account of the accidental falling from the train is, no doubt correct, but injuries sustained by her were direct consequence of falling from the train. Had she not accidentally fallen and become unconscious on the railway track, there was no question of her legs or the fingers of left hand being amputated by another passing train. It was only because she had become unconscious on account of accidental falling from the train and was unable to move away while the other train was coming, so the injuries sustained by her were the direct consequence of the accidental falling from the train. Therefore, this argument of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted that the injuries were not the direct result of the accidental fall or the result of untoward incident. So far as the effort of learned Counsel to bring the case within the exceptions is concerned there is no evidence at all on record to prove that respondent was in any way responsible for the injuries sustained by her. According to the evidence, she was pushed and thrown off the train on account of overcrowding. It appears that due to heavy rush, she was unable to have access to any seat inside the coach. It cannot be said that she was in any way negligent or responsible for any criminal act and the provisions of Sections 153 and 156 of the Railways Act, 1989 are not attracted to the present case.
13. The case of Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh 1984 ACJ 719 (SC), is not applicable to the facts of this case because in that case the accident had occurred some time much before the enactment of the Railways Act, 1989. In the earlier Act the definition of the accident was totally different, which has now been totally changed and Section 123(c)(2) has been inserted by Act 28 of 1994 with effect from 1.8.1994.
14. The case of Union of India v. Jameela 2004 (22) LCD 986, is also not applicable to the facts of this case because the respondent has not acted in any negligent manner.
15. In the case of Union of India v. Sushila Devi , where the death of the respondent was caused by accidental falling from train and there was no evidence at all to show that deceased committed suicide at place of accident and police report was to the effect that death was due to accidental fall from train, it was held that the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act being beneficial legislation strict proof was not required and the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation.
16. In the case of N. Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India , where the deceased was accidentally thrown off the train on account of overcrowding, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 which was enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17. In the present case it was proved up to the hilt that the respondent while travelling in the train fell accidentally due to heavy rush and overcrowding in the coach and that she sustained injuries as a direct consequence of the said falling from the train and, therefore, she was legally entitled for compensation which was rightly awarded by the Claims Tribunal. We find no good ground for interference in the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
18. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal, which deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed.