H.L. Meena JUDGMENT
1. Case in hand has been preferred before this Tribunal by the wife and sons of the deceased being sole dependants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs. 16,55,000/- together with interest on account of death of Shri Kaluram in an alleged untoward incident.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 13/2/2013 deceased Shri Kaluram commenced his journey from Delhi Cantt. to Narnaul by a passenger train named Delhi? Udaipur Chetak Express holding a valid second class railway journey ticket bearing No. 95214044 and during journey when the said train was running shorter to Narnaul railway station near Kms. 50/8-9, deceased Kaluram due to a sudden jerk by the train and resultant loss of balance, accidentally fell down from the running train and suffered multiple grievous injuries. It has further been averred in the claim application that the injuries suffered by the deceased ultimately proved fatal and he died as a result thereof. Further, the Government Railway Police, Narnaul on receipt of information about this mishap, registered an FIR bearing No. 21/2013 dated 13/2/2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and completed other mandatory formalities including postmortem on the dead body. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the family members for last rites.
3. To strengthen their claim, the applicants have placed on record copies of the memo issued by the Station Supdt., Narnaul, FIR, Postmortem Report, Fard Jabti railway journey ticket, railway journey ticket, statement of Smt. Amar Bai and Shri Ravindra Kumar, Identity Cards of the applicants and Family Ration Card.
4. On receipt of notice, the respondent railway administration appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement along with the original DRM's Report pleading therein that the averments made in the claim application are false and baseless and the present claim application has been filed by the applicants to take undue monetary benefits. The deceased did not die as a result of fall from the running train but died during trespass for which the respondent railway administration cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It has been pleaded on behalf of respondent that there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and the dead body was detected only at 23.55 hours during patrolling whereas the alleged train reached there at about 22.01 hours. No ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased and ticket so produced on behalf of applicants, is an arranged one and as such the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the alleged train. On the basis of these and other pleas, dismissal of the claim application has been sought by the respondent.
5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties and material made available on record, following issues were framed:-
1- Whether the deceased was traveling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?
2- Whether the alleged incident does not fall under the definition of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants?
3- Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application?
4- What relief?
6. In the evidence, applicant No. 1 Smt. Amar Bai and applicant No. 2 Shri Ravindra Kumar have filed their examination-in-chief on affidavits. Documents made available on record on behalf of applicants were exhibited as A/1 to A/9. Both the aforesaid deponents were cross-examined by learned counsel for the respondent on 22/9/2014.
7. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of respondent railway administration.
FINDINGS
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, material made available on record, evidence adduced on behalf of applicants and heard the arguments advanced on behalf of rival parties by their counsel. Our findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:-
Issue No. 1?
9. It has been deposed by applicant No. 1 Smt. Amar Bai that on 13/2/2013 her deceased husband Shri Kaluram was traveling from Delhi Cantt. to Narnaul by a passenger train named Delhi Udaipur Chetak Express holding a valid second class railway journey ticket bearing No. 95214044 and was a bona fide passenger of the said train at the time of occurrence of incident. During cross-examination, nothing could be elicited otherwise. Likewise, applicant No. 2 Shri Ravindra Kumar has also deposed the same facts. No cross-examination has been effected on this point. However, to prove the fact that deceased Shri Kaluram was traveling ex. Delhi Cantt. to Narnaul by a passenger train named Delhi Udaipur Chetak Express on a valid second class railway journey ticket, certified copy of the same has been placed on record on behalf of applicants as Ex. A/3.
10. Ex. A/5 is the certified copy of Fard Jama Talashi and on going through its contents, we find that the Police has very specifically shown the recovery of aforesaid ticket from the person of the dead body along with other articles. Besides, the Investigation Officer while submitting his Report to the competent authority, has also very specifically mentioned that railway journey ticket bearing No. 95214044 was found with the deceased and the same was also got verified by the Booking Office, Delhi Cantt and found to be correct.
11. In view of the above, we hold that deceased was a bona fide passenger of the alleged train as defined under Section 2(29) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the applicants and against the respondent.
Issue No. 2?
12. To prove the death of the deceased as a result of an untoward incident, it has been deposed by applicant No. 1 Smt. Amar Bai that on 13/2/2013 her deceased husband was traveling from Delhi Cantt. to Narnaul and during journey when the said train reached near Narnaul railway station, her deceased husband due to a sudden jerk by the train and resultant loss of balance, accidentally fell down from the running train, suffered multiple grievous injuries and died subsequently. During cross-examination, nothing could be elicited otherwise which could lead us to doubt the testimony of this witness. Alike, applicant No. 2 Shri Ravindra Kumar has also deposed the same facts by way of his examination-in-chief on affidavit and during cross-examination nothing came out contradictory or suspicious. To establish their case that death of the deceased occasioned due to an untoward incident as a result of an accidental fall from the running train, copies of certain documents prepared by the Police and Postmortem Report have been placed on record by the applicants as Ex. A/1 to A/9.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that death of the deceased did not take as a result of an accidental fall from the running train but he died during trespass. He has further argued that trespass is a punishable offence under Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989 and, therefore, present case is covered under exception (c) proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 for which the respondent railway administration is absolved from its liability to pay compensation to the victims and their dependants. It has also been argued by him that the said fact stands corroborated with the original DRM's Report. In the conclusion a prayer for dismissal of the claim application has been made by him.
14. We have carefully heard the arguments, perusal the material made available on record and are of the opinion that although it has been argued on behalf of respondent railway administration that deceased did not become a victim of an untoward incident as a result of an accidental fall from the running train but no evidence whatsoever has been adduced to substantial the same. A mere plea without supported by any corroborative evidence, in our considered view, has no gravity in the eye of law. Similarly, the conclusion arrived at in the original DRM's Report is also not acceptable being not supported by any corroborative evidence to draw an adverse inference.
15. We feel it pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while delivering judgment in the case of Jameela and others vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0656/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 3705 in Para-9, has held that:-
"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"
16. With regard to the liability of respondent railway administration in such cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar MANU/SC/7608/2008 : (2008) 9 SCC 527, has observed under para-12, 14 & 17 as under:-
"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 string interpretation.
14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passenger 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 railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression, we will be depriving a large number 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 passenger' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e. a passenger traveling 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.
"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."
17. In the light of judgments quoted above and under the fact and circumstances of this particular case, we hold that applicants by way of sufficient evidence both oral and documentary which remained un-rebutted throughout, have succeeded in establishing their case that death of the deceased took place due to an untoward incident as a result of an accidental fall from the passenger carrying train and the present case is well within the definition of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Accordingly, we hold the same and this issue is decided in favour of the applicants and against the respondent.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4?
18. Both these issues are being dealt with and decided together.
19. Present claim application has been preferred before this Tribunal by the wife and sons of the deceased being the sole dependants. Applicant No. 1 Smt. Amar Bai vide Para-1 of her examination-in-chief on affidavit has deposed that present applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased. Applicant No. 2 Shri Ravindra Kumar has also deposed the same fact by way of his examination-in-chief on affidavit. To prove their sole dependence, true copy of Family Ration Card (Ex. A/7) has been filed on behalf of applicants. On the contrary, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of respondent to rebut the case of the applicants on the point of their sole dependence. Moreover, during pendency of the claim application, none else appeared before the Tribunal claiming himself/herself as one of the dependants or the sole dependant of the deceased.
20. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Menon vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0165/2001 : (2001 ACJ 721) and argued that as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the applicants are entitled for compensation as per the amended schedule.
21. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) and hold that present applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased as defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 and in view of our findings on Issue No. 1 and 2 above, they are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- as prescribed under Part-I of the Schedule appended to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 as amended on 22/12/2016.
22. As regard interest, there is no provision under the Railways Act, 1989 or the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 as amended on 22/12/2016. However, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's decision in the case of Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Ors. Vs. Union of India and others reported in MANU/SC/1108/2009 : AIR 2009 SC 3098 and Mohammadi and others versus Union of India III (2010) ACC 933 (SC), the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award pendente lite interest on the amount of compensation determined by it under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to allow simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of registration of the claim application i.e. 3/7/2013 to the date of this order.
23. Both these issues are decided accordingly.
ORDER
24. We, therefore, pass an order that the claim application of the applicants for compensation, stands allowed for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of registration of the claim application i.e. 3/7/2013 to the date of this order. The compensation awarded, with interest, shall be paid by the respondent railway administration by means of account payee cheques/RTGS/NEFT within a period of sixty days from the date copy of the judgment/order, is received by the respondent railway administration failing which interest @ 9% per annum would accrue from the date of default on the total amount payable.
25. Further, out of the amount of compensation, Rs. 6,00,000/- shall be paid to applicant No. 1 Smt. Amar Bai and balance amount of compensation shall equally be distributed between applicant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. each will get Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the whole amount of interest shall be paid to applicant No. 1 Smt. Amar Bai.
26. In view of the law and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., MANU/SC/0389/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 1631, it is directed that out of the whole amount payable to applicant No. 1 Smt. Amar Bai, Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years in order to earn good rate of interest. The whole amount payable to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 shall also be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years in order to earn good rate of interest. However, all the applicants shall be at liberty to withdraw interest accrued on their fixed deposit amount from time to time to meet out their day-to-day requirements. It is further directed that no loan or encumbrance shall be created on their fixed deposit amount.
27. To protect the interest of the applicants, it is also ordered that in case no particulars with regard to Saving Bank Accounts along with proof in any Nationalized Bank nearest to the place of residence as mentioned in the claim application and copies of Aadhaar Cards, have been furnished on behalf of the applicants, they are hereby ordered to furnish within one month the particulars of their Saving Bank Accounts along with proof of a Nationalized Bank nearest to their place of residence and copies of Aadhaar Cards to the respondent Railway administration and if they fail to furnish the said particulars within the given period of one month, they shall not be entitled to receive interest from the date of judgment till the date of furnishing the said details.
28. As soon as the amount of compensation is received by the applicants, photo copies of the Fixed deposit Receipts, as directed above, shall be submitted before this Tribunal for information and record. It is further directed that the respondent shall issue necessary instructions to the concerned Bank to not to release any amount from the said fixed deposit amount till the order in original to this effect, from this Tribunal is received by the concerned Bank.
29. In facts and circumstances of the case, there is however, no order as to costs.
30. Registry is directed to send a free certified copy of this judgment directly to the applicants at their postal address mentioned in the claim application by Speed Post in view of Rule 34(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.
31. Judgment pronounced, signed and sealed in open Court today i.e. 14.09.2017.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.