`Reportable'
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2003
Jameela & Ors. Appellants
Versus
Union of India Respondent
JUDGMENT
AFTAB ALAM, J.
1. On June 23, 1997, the GRP found the dead body of a male person at
Magarwara Railway Station. From the pockets of the deceased, the police
recovered a telephone number, a railway ticket bearing no.35810970, dated
June 21, 1997 and a receipt showing payment of excess fare for travelling in
a sleeper coach. Information about the discovery of the dead body was given
on the phone number and then it came to light that he was a certain M.
Hafeez, the husband of appellant no.1 and the father of appellant nos.2-5.
2. The appellants filed a claim case (OA 9700059) before the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, claiming a compensation of
Rs.11,11,000.00 (rupees eleven lakhs and eleven thousand only) under the
2
Railways Act, 1989 (hereafter “the Act”) for the death of M. Hafeez. In the
claim application, it was stated that the deceased was travelling from
Ahmedabad to Lucknow by Awadh Express (Train No.5064) on a valid
ticket and he fell down from the train at or near Magarwara Railway Station
in an untoward incident resulting in his death. The applicants’ claim was
contested by the General Manager, Northern Railway. The reply filed on his
behalf is not on record, but from the Tribunal’s order it appears that in the
reply the death of M. Hafeez and the validity of the ticket found in his
pocket were admitted. It was, however, stated that according to the railway
records, no accident of any kind took place between Kanpur and Lucknow
on June 23, 1997 and it appeared that the deceased fell down from the
running train due to his own negligence. There was no negligence on the part
of the railway. Further, that the applicants had not filed any proof of the
accident.
3. In view of the respective stands of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
issue, whether the applicants were able to prove that the death of M. Hafeez
was due to an “untoward incident” as defined under section 123 of the
Railways Act. On a consideration of the materials brought before it, the
Tribunal found and held that the claimant had proved that the death of M.
Hafeez was due to an “untoward incident” as defined under section 123 of
the Act. The Tribunal, then, proceeded to consider the amount of
3
compensation to which the applicants were entitled and found and held that
under the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (as it stood at the
time of the accident), the maximum compensation in case of death was
Rs.2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs only). The applicants were, therefore,
entitled to the aforesaid amount only and not anything in excess of it, as
claimed by them. It, accordingly, passed its order.
4. Against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the Railways
preferred an appeal (FAFO No.277 of 1999) before the Lucknow Bench of
the Allahabad High Court. A division bench of the High Court by judgment
and order dated November 6, 2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the
Tribunal’s order. Before the High Court, reliance was placed on behalf of
the Railway on the proviso to section 124A of the Act which provides that
no compensation will be payable under that section by the railway
administration if the passenger died or suffered injury due to (a) suicide or
attempted suicide by him, (b) self-inflicted injury or (c) his own criminal act.
A reference was also made to section 154 of the Act which provides that if
any person does any act in a rash and negligent manner, 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 travelling 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. It was further contended on behalf of the Railway
4
that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was
standing at the door from where he fell down near the Magarwara Railway
Station, where the train does not stop. (It needs to be pointed out that this
contention could only be based on speculation, as admittedly there was no
eyewitness to the accident). The High Court accepted the contentions raised
on behalf of the Railway and allowed the appeal observing as follows:
“On the basis of the law & facts indicated by the learned
counsel for the parties, we find that in the present case the
victim is to be blamed for the incident being negligent and
therefore this case is not covered by the definition of the
untoward incident. However, so far as the compensation is
concerned the case of the claimant is covered by the provision
of Section 124-A as because of his own negligence the
deceased had fallen down from the train which caused his
death. Further in the light of the fact that the deceased acted in
a negligent manner without any precaution of safety by station
going at the open door of the running train which resulted into
his death.”
(emphasis added)
5. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in
holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under
section 124A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down
from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railway
that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train
compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely
based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness of the fall of the
deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to
5support the case of the Railway that the accident took place in the manner
suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased
fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any
effect on the compensation payable under section 124 A of the Act.
6. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the Liability of
Railway Administration for Death and Injury to Passengers due to
Accidents. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has the definition
clauses. Clause (c) defines “untoward incident” which insofar as relevant for
the present is as under:
“123 (c) untoward incident means-
(1) (i) xxxxxxxx
(ii) xxxxxxxx
(iii) xxxxxxxx
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying
passengers.”
Section 124A of the Act provides as follows:
“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 to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or
injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
6
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under
this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies
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 purposes of this section, “passenger”
includes –
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a
train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket
and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.”
(emphasis added)
7. It is not denied by the Railway that M. Hafeez fell down from the
train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore,
clearly a “passenger” for the purpose of section 124A as clarified by the
Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under section 124A the liability to
pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the
part of the railway administration. But the proviso to the section says that the
railway administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in
7case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the
reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e).
8. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railway that
the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted
injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he
was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural
cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly
accidental.
9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the
Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train
compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as
negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on
Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c)
to the proviso to section 124 A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c)
must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open
doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a
rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus,
the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its
favour.
8
10. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the matter. The judgment
and order of the High Court coming under appeal is set aside and the
judgment and order of the Tribunal is restored. Since a period of more than
10 years has already elapsed from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal,
the compensation money along with interest need not be kept in fixed
deposits, but should be paid to the appellants in the ratio fixed by the
Tribunal. The payment must be made within 2 months from today.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, with costs quantified at
Rs.30,000.00 (rupees thirty thousand only) payable to the applicants along
with the compensation money.
………………………………J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
………………………………J.
(R.M. LODHA)
New Delhi
August 27, 2010.