FAO No.1196 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
F.A.O No.1196 of 2009
Date of Decision: 31.07.2009
Union of India
....Appellant
Versus
Master Shah Nawaz, through his father and natural guardian; Mr. Mohd.
Ahmed
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. A.S. Gagrha, Advocate
for Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate
for the respondent.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
The present appeal is being filed by the appellant against
judgment dated 21-10-2008 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, vide which, the respondent-minor has
been held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lac
and fifty thousand only) @ 9% per ammun, on account of injuries received
due to fall from the running train.
FAO No.1196 of 2009 2
Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed claim
application on 02-06-2006 for grant of compensation through his father and
natural guardian, on account of injuries suffered by him in the alleged
untoward incident that took place on 20-03-2006 at Doraha Railway
Station. On 20-03-2006, the respondent was travelling accompanied with
his mother, paternal uncle (Chacha) and two other family members from
Ludhiana to Haridwar in train No.4610 Dn having only two valid tickets
No.3231;PNR No.F8403231 and another no.3232; PNR No.48403232.
Due to rush in general compartment at Ludhiana Railway Station, all the
five family members could not enter in general compartment of the train.
Therefore, in order to enter in the train, they entered in a Reserved Boggie.
During the journey, TTE checked their tickets and pointed out that they
cannot travel in the reserved compartment and advised when train stops,
they should go to the general compartment of the train. Suddenly, the train
stopped at Doraha Railway Station, then Mohd. Noshad Ahmed (paternal
uncle of the respondent) asked all the family members to come down from
the train and decided to go into general compartment of the train. They all
entered in the general compartment of the train but due to rush in the
compartment, they could not sit on the seats. Resultantly, they had to
stand on their footsteps in the compartment. When the train was leaving
Doraha Railway Station near gate No.164 BC, respondent suffered a jolt
and fell down from the running train. Due to this, he got injuries and his
right leg amputated from above knee by the wheels of the train.
Accordingly, station memo was issued regarding the incident by Doraha
Railway Station and the respondent was got admitted to Sidhu Hospital,
Doraha and then shifted to CMC Hoshiptal, Ludhiana for further treatment.
FAO No.1196 of 2009 3
Learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the order,
submitted that as per Section 2(29) of the Railway Act. 1989, the definition
of “passenger” means a person travelling with valid pass or ticket, but
since, the respondent was travelling without holding valid ticket, he is not
entitled to claim under Section 124-A of Compensation on account of
untoward incidents.
Learned counsel for the respondent, however, pointed out that
the said argument was incorrect and the injured respondent, who was then
minor and only 13 years of age, had a valid ticket and this is obvious from
the findings and report of the DRM which is reproduced below :-
” In this case, enquiry was conducted by
IPF/SIR. During the course of enquiry, it is found that
a memo was issued by SS/Doraha on 20-03-2006
about a person had fallen down from train No.4610
Dn and got serious injury. On receipt of memo
GRP/RPF attended the spot, but nobody was present
on the spot. On enquiry, it was found that the injured
was admitted in Sidhu Hospital, Doraha by co-
passengers who were travelling with deceased
person. Co-passengers had shown two Railway
Tickets no.F-48403231, AD=4 & F-48403232, AD=1
to GRP. On verification of tickets, it was found that
tickets were issued from booking office, Ludhiana.
As per statement of co-passengers travelling
with the deceased, they had purchased general
tickets and boarded in sleeper class. After departure
from Ludhiana, TTE told them to change the coach at
next station as they had general tickets. They all
approached towards the gate of coach to alight from
train at next station. As per statement of Md. Aquil &
Md. Naushad co-passengers, it reveals that Shanawaj
was standing at the footboard of the coach and after
FAO No.1196 of 2009 4just departure from Doraha Railway Station, he
slipped off from foot board and got cut his right leg
and other leg badly injured.”
The finding on issue No.1 has also been recorded by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, which is as
follows :-
” Issue No.1
The applicant has intimated particulars of train
number, ticket number and other companions during
the journey and that when the injured was travelling
by the train and he fell down while the train was
running as has been informed from the station
memo as well as station record and police papers
and affidavits; DRM report, as filed by respondent
also admits the particulars of tickets, mentioned by
the applicant. Therefore, this issue is concluded in
favour of the applicant that he was a bonafide
passenger, as alleged in the claim application.”
It is obvious that factually incorrect argument has been raised. The
respondent was a bona fide passenger and was travelling against a valid ticket
along with his family. The two tickets were issued for four persons and one
person, respectively i.e. for a total of five passengers. Such an argument,
therefore, deserves to be rejected outrightly.
Learned counsel for the appellant, however, further submitted that
the accident did not fall under the definition of untoward incident as the
respondent himself was negligent as he was standing on his foot steps in the
door of the compartment of the running train and hence, the appellant was not
liable to pay any compensation.
There is no merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for
the appellant, in view of the judgment, reported in the case of Union of India v.
FAO No.1196 of 2009 5
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (2008) ACJ 1895, which is as follows :-
” XXX XXX XXX XXX
14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive
meaning to the expression `accidental falling of a
passenger from a train carrying passengers’ in Section
123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large
number of railway passengers from getting
compensation in railway accidents. It is well-known that
in our country there are crores of people who travel by
the railway trains since everybody cannot afford
travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive
and narrow meaning to the expression we will be
depriving a large umber of victims of train accidents
(particularly poor and middle class people) from getting
compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our
opinion, the expression `accidental falling of a
passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes
accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a
passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying
to enter into a railway train and falls down during the
process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal,
interpretation should be given to the expression.
XXX XXX XXX
16. The accident in which Abja died is clearly
not covered by the proviso to Section 124-A. The
accident did not occur because of any of the reasons
mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section
124-A. Hence, in our opinion, the present case is
clearly covered by the main body of section 124-A of
the Railways Act, and not its proviso.
17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or
no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a
case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is
wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.”
In view of the above, the arguments that it was not the fault
on the part of the Railways and that there was a contributory negligence, is
FAO No.1196 of 2009 6
misconceived. In various social welfare Acts like the Workmen Compensation
Act, the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to people
against death and injuries, irrespective of fault.
In view of the above discussion, there is not merit in the appeal
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR)
31.07.2009 JUDGE
gurpreet