Special Leave Petition Civil No 11525 of 1983 From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th March 1983 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
First Appeal No 88 of 1979 M section Gujral and R N Poddar for the Petitioners
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR J
Two mishaps one to the train  by which a passenger is travelling and another a sympthetic one having nexus with the former and going arm in arm with it to the passenger  himself must occur in the course of the same transaction in order to attract liability of the Railway Administration under Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act 1890 rightly contends counsel for the Railway
The High Court in our opinion was in error in not upholding this unexceptionable proposition and in awarding compensation to a passenger on the premise that it was not essential to establish that there was an accident to the train by which the passenger was travelling
Counsel for the Railway was fair enough we very highly appreciate this gesture to state that it was on account of the erroneous interpretation placed by the High Court which was likely to give rise to untenable claims in future rather than the relatively small amount awarded to the passenger that the Railway was obliged to approach this Court by way of the present Special Leave Petition
We declined to interfere with the operative order of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution of India having regard to the size of the award both sides would have expended more than the amount at stake in litigation expenses if leave was granted but observed that the view taken by the High Court in regard to the question of law involved in the matter was erroneous
We now 558 proceed to articulate our reasons in support of the view expressed by us
The question of interpretation of Section 82A of the Act has arisen in the following contextual backdrop
The respondent was travelling by train in his capacity as a bonafide passenger
While the bogie in which the respondent was travelling was being shunted at a Railway Station the respondent accidentally fell down from the train near the water column at the end of the platform and his right hand was crushed by that part of the train which was being shunted As to how exactly the respondent sustained the injury the versions of the parties differ
The District Judge did not accept the version of the respondent that the bogie in which he was travelling received a sudden jerk and he fell down on that account
The Railway Administration on the other hand contended that the respondent sustained the injury in the manner described in the relevant contemporaneous record Assistant Station Master s Diary namely the injury was sustained by the appellant in going to the rear end of the train and possibly boarding one of the bogies which was being detached during the shunting operation and in this process he appears to have been hit by the water column when these bogies a part of the train were being moved during the shunting operation
 Now Section 82A of the Act in so far as material reads thus 82A Liability of Railway Administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers 1 When in the course of working a railway 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 559 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 by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train sustained as a result of such accident
2 This liability of a railway administration under this Section shall in no case exceed fifty thousand rupees in respect of any one person Emphasis added
In interpreting Section 82A the High Court speaks thus The word accident therefore according to its ordinary meaning which must be given to it and construed in the context in which it is used in Section 82A must mean to include within its ambit all incidents resulting in the death of or bodily injury to any passenger during his rail journey occurring in the course of working a railway if it involves a passenger train or a part thereof
Any incident treated as railway accident involving a passenger train by the public at large and the railway staff should be treated to be such an accident falling within the ambit of Section 82A
Any mishap or misfortune in the working of a railway involving a passenger train or a part thereof resulting in the death of or personal injury to a passenger travelling therein during his rail journey is an accident within the ambit of Section 82A
This will of course exclude any incident voluntarily and consciously invited by the passenger ie suicide by jumping in front of the moving train
 In our opinion the High Court has shut its eyes to the 560 significance of the essential precondition engrafted in Section 82A in regard to the accident to the train 
Why we say so will become evident presently
A body scan  of the aforesaid provision Section 82A reveals that 1 The machinery of the Section is set in motion only provided there is an accident 
2 The accident must be to  the train  or part of the train  carrying passengers
3 The accident to the train carrying passengers may be due to a Collision of two trains one of which is the train carrying passengers or b derailment of such train or c other accident to  such a train
4 In case any passenger travelling by such train dies or sustains any injury to his person or property as a result of or on account of such accident to the train or a part of the train carrying passengers compensation to the extent provided in the Section will become payable
5 Such compensation will be payable regardless of whether or not the accident to the train carrying passengers is due to negligence or fault on the part of the railway administration
That the accident  envisioned by the first part of Section 82A i is an accident to  the train  or a part of the train  is self evident
The Section speaks of an accident by reason of either 1 collision or 2 derailment or 3 other accident to a train
There is therefore no room for any ambiguity on that score
561 So also it cannot be gainsaid that the accident adverted to therein cannot refer to an accident to a passenger whilst  on a passenger train even if the said train is not at all involved in any accident
Common sense and reason buttress this proposition for the philosophy of Section 82A appears to be to turn an existing fault  liability into a fault or no fault  liability
Why Because a carrier who transports passengers as a part of his business when he charges fare impliedly guarantees to carry him with safety in so far as such safety is within his power
It is within his power to transport the passenger without an accident to the train for such an accident is not something which is ordinarily or in the normal course of events inherent in the running of a train
And presumably in order to be fair  to the passengers who pay the fare  for a safe safe from accident to the train journey the legislature with an eye on social welfare has provided for compensation by a summary proceeding and has made the liability fault free
But to ensure safe travel is not to insure the passenger against accident to himself whilst  travelling
The distinction deserves to be spot lighted
What is  provided is compensation for death or injury caused or loss sustained on account of accident to  the train
What is not  provided is compensation for death of the passenger whilst  travelling or injury sustained by a passenger whilst  travelling on the train say by reason of his own act default or misfortune which has no nexus with the accident to the train 
In other words what the Section does is to turn a liability which was contingent on fault  into an absolute  liability
What however it does not do is to provide a free insurance cover  to the person and property of a passenger so that compensation can be claimed for the accidental death of or injury to the passenger andor loss or damage to his property even when there has been no accident  to the train carrying such a passenger
What is the position when a passenger falls down from the train while the bogie in which he is travelling is being shunted Say when he is standing in the door frame or his trying 562 to get in or get out of the train on account of the jolt to the bogie at the time of impact with the rest of the train Is it an accident to the train  so as to attract the liability under Section 82A The answer substantially depends on the answer to the question what is an accident  An accident is an occurrence or an event which is unforeseen and startles one when it takes place but does not startle one when it does not take place
It is the happening of the unexpected not the happening of the expected which is called an accident
In other words an event or occurrence the happening of which is ordinarily expected in the normal course by almost every one undertaking a rail journey cannot be called an accident 
But the happening of something which is not inherent in the normal course of events and which is not ordinarily expected to happen or occur is called a mishap or an accident
Now a collision of two trains or derailment of a train or blowing up of a train is something which no one ordinarily expects in the course of a journey
That is why it falls within the parameters of the definition of accident
But a jolt to the bogie which is detached from one train and attached to another cannot be termed as an accident
No shunting can take place without such a jerk or an impact atleast when it is attached or annexed to a train by a shunting engine
If a passenger tumbles inside the compartment or tumbles out of the compartment when he is getting inside the compartment or stepping out of the compartment it cannot be said that an accident has occurred to the train or a part of the train
It is doubtless an accident to the passenger 
But not to the train
Otherwise it will have to be held that every time a bogie is detached in the course of shunting operation and attached or annexed to a train in the course of the said operation the train meets with an accident
And if such an event or occurrence is to be ordinarily expected as a part of every day life it cannot be termed as an accident accident to the train or a part of it
In the case of a mishap to the passenger in such circumstances it cannot be said that there has been an accident to the train and the mishap has nexus with it
The liability under Section 82A will not therefore be attracted in such cases
Or in the case of a mishap to a passenger in similar circumstances such as an injury sustained on account of falling down whilst getting on or off a running or stationary train or sustained when he slips in a compartment or when something falls on him whilst travelling
All such 563 mishaps when not connected with the accident to the train or a part of it would be accidents to the passenger only
And until both the mishaps take place one to the train and another a sympathetic one to the passenger the liability under Section 82A of the Act will not be attracted
So also unless the loss or damage to the property of a passenger is attributable to the accident to the train liability under Section 82A will not be attracted
In our opinion Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act 1890 is not capable of the rather strained interpretation placed by the High Court and the true position of law is as unfolded in the discussion made heretobefore


Summary:
The respondent was travelling by train as a bona fide passenger
While the bogie in which he was travelling was being shunted at a Railway Station the respondent fell down from the train near the water column at the end of the platform and his right hand was crushed by that part of the train which was being shunted
The District Judge did not accept the version of the respondent that the bogie in which he was travelling received a sudden jerk and that he fell down on that account and dismissed the application for compensation In appeal the High Court held that the word accident  in section 82A must mean to include within its ambit all incidents resulting in the death of or bodily injury to any passenger during his rail journey occuring in the course of working of a railway if it involves a passenger train or apart thereof and awarded compensation on the premise that it was not essential to establish that there was an accident to the train  by which the passenger was travelling
In the Appeal to this Court on the question of liability of the Railway Administration under Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act 1890
 HELD 1
The liability under Section 82A will not be attracted in the case of a mishap or injury sustained by a passenger on account of falling down whilst getting on or off a running or stationary train or sustained when he slips in a compartment or when something falls on him whilst travelling
All such mishaps when not connected with the accident 556 to the train or a part of it would be accidents to the passenger only
And until both the mishaps take place one to the train and another a sympathetic one to the passenger the liability under section 82A of the Act will not be attracted
So also unless the loss or damage to the property of a passenger is attributable to the accident to the train liability under Section 82A will not be attracted
562G 563A In the instant case liability under Section 82A will not be attracted as it cannot be said that there has been an accident to the train and the mishap has nexus with it
562G 2
The philosophy of Section 82A appears to be to turn an existing fault liability into a fault  or no fault  liability
And presumably in order to be fair  to the passengers who pay the fare  for a safe safe from accident to the train journey the legislature with an eye on social welfare has provided for compensation by a summary proceeding and has made the liability fault free
561B D 3
That the accident  envisioned by the first part of Section 82A1 is an accident to  the train  or a part of the train  is self evident
The Section speaks of an accident by reason of either 1 collision or 2 derailment or 3 other accident to a train
560G H 4
What is provided is compensation for death or injury caused or loss sustained on account of accident to  the train
What is not  provided is compensation for death of the passenger whilst  travelling or injury sustained by a passenger whilst travelling on the train say by reason of his own act default or misfortune which has no nexus with the accident  to the train  What the section does is to turn a liability which was contingent on fault into an absolute  liability
What however it does not do is to provide a free insurance cover to the person and property of a passenger so that compensation can be claimed for the accidental death of or injury to the passenger and or loss or damage to his property even when there has been no accident  to the train carrying such a passenger
561E G 5
An accident is an occurrence or an event which is unforeseen and startles one when it takes place but does not startle one when it does not take place
It is the happening of the unexpected not the happening of the expected which is called an accident
An event or occurrence the happening of which is ordinarily expected in the normal course by almost every one undertaking a rail journey cannot be called an accident 
But the happening of something which is not inherent in the normal course of events and which is not ordinarily expected to happen or occur is called a mishap or an accident
A collision of two trains or derailment of a train or blowing up of a train is something which no one ordinarily expects in the course of a journey
That is why it falls within the parameters of the definition of accident
But a jolt to the bogie which is detached from one train and attached to another cannot be termed as an accident
No shunting can take place without such a jerk or an impact at least when it is attached or annexed to a train by a shunting engine
if a passenger 557 tumbles inside the compartment or tumbles out of the compartment when he is getting inside the compartment or stepping out of the compartment it cannot be said that an accident has occurred to the train or part of the train
It is doubtless an accident to the passenger 
But not to the train
562B F