JUDGMENT
B.L. Yadav, J.
1. These two writ petitions, (Writ Petition No. 7866 of 1983 Union of India v. Smt. Ram Devi and Anr. (for short the first petition) and (Writ Petition No. 7867 of 1983 Union of India v. Smt. Rama Bai and Anr.), (for short the second petition), raise a common question of law and fact, hence it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.
2. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 18-3-83 passed by the Claims Commissioner, Central Railway, Agra in Claim Petition No. 80 of 1982 (Smt, Ram Devi v. Union of India), under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, (for short the Act), and the judgment and order dated 15-4-83 passed by the Claims Commissioner, Central Railway, Agra in Claim Petition No. 64 of 1982 (Smt. Rama Bai v. Union of India), under Section 82-A of the Act.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. There was a collision between 21 Dn. Dakshin Express and Itarsi Up Special Goods Train on 27-1-82. One Buddhoo Lal Railway Engine Driver, husband of Smt. Rama Devi, the claimant in Claim Petition No. 80 of 1982, lost his life. The claimant preferred a claim petition with a prayer that she may be awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of death of her husband. Whereas in the second petition one Radhey Lal, Assistant Engine Driver of the ill-fated 21 Dn. Dakshin Express died in collision with Itarsi Up Special Goods Train Smt. Rama Bai, the wife of deceased filed a Claim Petition No. 62 of 1982 claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This Claim Petition has been decided by order dated 15-4-83, whereas the first Claim Petition has been allowed by order dated 18-3 83 In both the claim petitions a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each has been awarded to both the widows. It is against these orders the present petitions have been filed.
4. Sri P.N. Katju, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that in the first petition the deceased was a Railway employee employed as Engine Driver, and not a passenger. Similarly in second petition also the deceased was a Railway employee employed as Asstt. Engine Driver and not a pas; senger, whereas according to Section 82-A of the Act it is only bona fide passenger on whose death the damages can be claimed and not on the death of an employee of the Railway Administration He placed reliance on Union of India v. Sardarini Harbans Kaur .
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents Sri Harkauli, on the other hand, urged that the word ‘passenger’ used under Section 82-A of the Act does not necessarily mean the passenger travelling with a ticket. The word has got a very comprehensive meaning and under Section 82-A(1) of the Act the words used are as would entitle a person who has been injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof. The word ‘person’ obviously means anybody including a passenger and it has been used very significantly indicating “any person”, who has either been injured or suffered a loss, can maintain claim petition for compensation. This obviously means that even employee of the Railway either injured or having suffered loss of life in theft case his heirs can filed a claim petition for compensation. It was further urged that Section 82-A (Eighty two ‘A’) of the Act has to be read along with Section 82-H (Eighty two ‘H’) of the Act. The latter section enacts that apart from right of a person to claim compensation under Section 82-A, any other person can recover compensation payable under the Work mens’ Compensation Actor under any other law for the time being in force. But no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once, in respect of the same accident. This obviously connotes that even another person who was entitled to sue under Workmen’s Compensation Act or any other law for the time being in force, can also claim compensation under Section 82-A read with Section 82-H of the Act But nobody can claim compensation twice. This leads only to one inference that even if a person including an employee of the Railway Administration, other than a passenger, dies, in that event also the compensation can be claimed and paid by the Railway Administration, the only rider being that the compensation cannot be claimed or paid twice. In the instant case the widows of both the deceased claimed compensation for the death of their husbands in the collision, hence their claim petitions were maintainable. It was also urged that the writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy and where substantial justice has been done, the same can be refused by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on Smt. Yashoda Devi v. Union of India .
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties the point for consideration is as to whether Section 82-A read with Section 82-H of the Act, a claim petition, seeking compensation filed by the heirs of the deceased employee of Railway Administration, who has lost his life in the collision of train including the train in which he was employed as Driver or otherwise, can be allowed or not. Section 82-A has to be read not in isolation but along with other relevant Section namely Section 82-H, Ex abundant Cautela, the statutory provision of Section 82-A of the Act is set out below:
82-A Liability of railway administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers: (1) When in the course of working a railway an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers, or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, 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, person who has been injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, be liable to pay compensation to the extent set out in Sub-section (2) and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods owned by the passengers and accompany the passenger in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.
(2) The liability of a railway administration under this Section shall in no case exceed fifty thousand rupees in respect of any one person.
The statutory provisions of Section 82-H of the Act are also set out below:
82-H. Saying as to certain rights : (1) The right of any person to claim compensation under Section 82-A shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) or any other law for the time being in force; but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident.
(2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall affect the right of any person to claim compensation payable under any contract or scheme providing for payment of compensation for death or personal injury or for damage to property or any sum payable under any policy of insurance.
7. The elementary rule of interpretation of statute is that where the words employed by legislature do not convey meaning consistent with the object of the Act, other parts of statute have also to be read together. In other words one part of a statute need not be read in isolation. In that connection the Court has to find out the intention of legislature. This could be done from the language employed. The Court need not cling always to literalness, but at the same time, must endeavour to avoid unjust and absurd result. The object of a particular Section must be in consonance with the purpose of the Act. When there are unhappily used words available in the provisions, the same could be reconciled with the object sought to be attained, even if in doing so there appears to be some violence to language. 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 present injustice. See State of Tamil Nadu v. Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd. ; Girdharilal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur .
8. In the present case we find that Section 82-A is part of integral scheme of the Act. It need not be considered or read in isolation, rather Section 82-A has to be read having regard to scheme of the Act along with other provisions and the meaning of words under Section 82-A have to be ascertained keeping in view its text along with the, con text with reference to other Sections including Section 82-H. In case the provision of Section 82-A has to be read in isolation, in that event this interpretation would render the provision of Section 82-H otiose or devoid of meaning see O.P. Singh v. Union of India .
9. It would not be out of place to make reference to the following observation in Luke v. England Revenue Commissioner (1967) AC 557 by Lord Rsid as follows:
To apply the words literally is to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature and to produce a wholly unreasonable result. To achieve the obvious intention and to produce a reasonable result we must do some violence to the words The general principle is well settled. It is only when the words are absolutely incapable of a construction which will accord with the apparent intention of the provision and will avoid a wholly unreasonable result that the words of the enactment must prevail.
(See Adler v. George (1964) 2 QB 7 : (1964) 1 All. ER 628)
10. Coming to the language of Section 82-A it is apparent that when in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, even though there may not be a wrongful act or negligence attributable to railway administration, a person who has been injured or suffered a loss, can maintain an action and recover damages and such damages would not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. Prima facie this part of Section 82-A(1) appears to convey self contained meaning and part II of Section 82-A(1) does convey a separate sense where the words have been used to that extent only for loss occasioned by death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident. It does not mean that in part I of Section 82-A(1) the clause ‘as would entitle a person’ means as would entitle a passenger. But even if assuming, though very reluctantly, to put the same interpretation as suggested by the petitioner, in that event also Section 82-A(1) has to be read along with Section 82-H, which in an unambiguous words provides that right of any person to claim compensation under Section 82-A shall not affect right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or any other Jaw for the time being in force. But no such person can claim compensation more than once. By Section 82-A it has been made evident on the basis of the language employed that any person can claim compensation and under Section 82-H he may also claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 or any other law, i.e. under the Law of Torts of under any other law. But there is a rider that no person can claim compensation more than once. In this view of the matter even though assuming that under Section 82-A on the death of employee (Engine Driver or Asstt. Engine Driver) even though no compensation could have been claimed as the deceased was not a passenger, in that event the damages or compensation could have been claimed either under the civil law, i.e. Law of Torts or other civil liability or under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. But the condition is that no such claim can be made more than once. In this view of the matter, if respondent No. 1 in both the petitions claims compensation, that would not make any difference if the compensation is claimed under Section 82-A. In other words Section 82-H lays down in a very clear terms that no person can claim compensation under Section 82-A or any other provisions of law more than once. This obviously connotes that compensation can be claimed under Section 82-A as has been claimed in the present case. Now respondent No. 1 cannot claim compensation under any other law and their claim petition for compensation under Section 82-A, in our considered opinion, was maintainable. In case the respondents claim compensation under Section 82-A that cannot be said to be not maintainable. On the correct interpretation of Section 82-A read with Section 82-H it cannot be said that the word ‘person’ used under Clause (1) of Section 82-A(1) of the Act, has not been used wisely by the legislature.
11. Reverting to the case cited at the Bar, Union of India v. Sardarni Harbans Kaur, (supra), was case where the deceased was travelling by goods train without ticket and died as a result of collision. In that case there was neither any explicit nor implicit consent of the railway in regard to his travel and the claim petition for damages was rejected. That case has been on different facts. In the present case the deceased driver or Assistant Driver was railway employee and he was doing his duty. At the same time it cannot be said that he was not travelling with the consent of railway administration. Hence that case is entirely on different facts and is of no assistance. Similarly Smt. Yashoda Devi v. Union of India, (Supra), relied apon by the learned Counsel for the respondents, was a case in which it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the word ‘passenger’ under Section 82-A of the Act does not include a person travelling without a ticket and a person travelling as a bona fide passenger compensation is payable on the death of such passenger with a ticket. In that case also the passenger travelling was without ticket and he was obviously travelling without any consent of the railway administration. Whereas in the present case the deceased was Driver/Asstt. Driver and was performing his duties with the consent of railway administration. It cannot be said that he was totally an unauthorised person nor his travel can be said to be unauthorised in any way. That case also does not appear to be of some positive assistance. But by implication and in a negative way the reasons given are of considerable assistance impleading to the inference that in the present case the deceased was discharging his duties with the consent of railway administration. In any view of the matter the case of Yashoda Devi (Supra) cannot be said to be a case of positive assistance.
12. Even by reading of Section 82-A there remains no doubt that any person either receiving injury or otherwise can claim compensation. In the instant case the person receiving injury died and the heir of the deceased claimed compensation and that has been allowed. We are accordingly of the view that the claim petition filed by respondents was validly filed and was maintainable and correctly allowed under the circumstance of the case.
13. The other question emanating from the first one is whether the petitioner was entitled a writ of certiorari which is a discretionary remedy. This writ cannot be claimed as a matter of course even though some legal rights have been violated or denied or frustrated. In casa substantial justice has been done, even though some order appears to be manifestly erroneous, this Court would be justified in refusing the relief or the issuance of the writ prayed for. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, as the husbands of these two widows lost their lives as employees of the railway administration, the claim petition filed by them has been correctly allowed by the Claims Commissioner. This is accordingly, not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ prayed for is refused.
14. In the result, the present petitions fail and are dismissed. We, however, refrain from making any order as to costs.