1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.01.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] [ENTITY], (Minor) [ENTITY] (Minor) [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Appellants Vs The [ENTITY], rep. by its General Manager, Chennai 600 003. Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under [SECTION] of [ACT], against the Judgment dated 09.10.2015 and made in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. For Appellants : Mr.[ENTITY] For Respondent : Mr.[ENTITY] http: www.judis.nic.in 2 ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants who are the claimants against the order dated 9.10.2015 and made in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased [ENTITY].
2.The appellants herein have contended before the Tribunal that the deceased [ENTITY] was a passenger in a Train from Avadi to Chennai and he had accidentally fell down from the train at LC gate 08 up slow line near Avadi Railway Station, sustained severe head injury on the back of the head, grevious injury to the right hip, both legs were smashed and he died at the place of accident. According to the appellants the deceased purchased a valid ticket to travel and hence they are entitled to compensation.
3.Disputing the version of the appellants, the respondent filed counter that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The respondent disputed the ticket No.24956 dated 14.07.2014 found in possession of the deceased. It was contended by the respondent that http: www.judis.nic.in the untoward incident happened at around 22.40 while the ticket was issued at 24 hours, hence the deceased could not have travelled by the said ticket.
4.At trial the 1st appellant examined herself as AW1 and marked Exhibits-A1 to A5 and on the side of the respondent [ENTITY] examined as witness and marked Exhibits A6 and A7.
5.The Tribunal admitted the case of the respondent that the ticket found on the body of the deceased could not have been the valid ticket since the same was issued after the accident at 24 hours and thus dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
6.I heard Mr.[ENTITY], learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.[ENTITY], learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record and Judgments produced by either parties.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the body of the deceased was recovered by the GRP who had recovered http: www.judis.nic.in the same on the complaint of the station master. The report of the accident has been conveyed to the GRP at about 22.40 hrs. Ever since the body of the deceased was in the custody of the GRP. All the recovery were made by the police. The travelling ticket No.24956 dated 14.7.2014 was also recovered by the GRP. If the respondent had any dispute regarding the ticket they have to prove that the police had played fraud. The ticket is genuine, only the time of issue of the ticket varies by about 1 hour. The respondent is also ruling out the possibility of error on their part. A ordinary traveler would never look into the ticket to note minute details such as time printed therein. The case of the respondent that somebody might have planted the ticket subsequently is a long shot and the burden of proof of such allegation is with them. The respondent has not proved how the deceased came into possession of the said ticket which was admittedly found in his pocket. Therefore the deceased was a traveler on a train between Avadi and Chennai and died due to a fall from the train and the accident was an untoward incident.
8.Per contra the counsel for the respondent submitted that the deceased was not travelling in the train at all and he died while crossing the train track and he was a trespasser. The ticket No.24956 http: www.judis.nic.in was issued after the alleged untoward incident. The dispute in the train ticket cannot be assailed. The deceased is not a bonafide traveler in the train and therefore there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
9.Now crucial question regarding the acceptance of the evidence of the Appellants that is the travelling ticket has been raised. The ticket No.24956 dated 14.7.2014 has been admittedly issued by the booking office, Avadi from III Window. The time of issue according to the respondent in between 23.00 hrs and 24.00 hrs. The ticket is admittedly an self printing ticket. The time found on the ticket is 24 hours. The respondent has not shown how the time is set in the printing machine and who changes them. They ought to have produced details of the issue of ticket hour by hour to prove the time of issue. The burden of proof of the validity of the ticket is with the respondent. It is pertinent to note that the deceased died at around 22.40 hrs. The GRP on receipt of the complaint from the Station Master had registered a case and seized of the dead body. The ticket in question was recovered from the body of the deceased. To imagine that someone on coming to know about the death of the deceased at around 22.40 hrs. rushed to the Avadi ticket booking counter window III and purchased a http: www.judis.nic.in travelling ticket within one hour and planted the same on the body of the deceased so as to claim compensation in mind-boggling to say the least. The inquest was conducted on the very next day and the inquest report suggests that deceased died by falling from a running train. The injuries are also consistent with fall from a running train. Therefore, we find the idea of someone planting a ticket within one hour of the accident with a view to get compensation from railway tribunal unacceptable.
10.Regarding the time difference in the ticket, there is no denying that the deceased had a need to travel by train having visited his wife at Avadi. So the court can draw the presumption under [SECTION] of [ACT] that the deceased would have travelled by train. If the deceased travelled by train then it naturally follows that he died due to a fall from the train. The deceased also had a valid travelling ticket which was found on the body of the deceased. Therefore the appellants are entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased in an untoward incident.
11.As per [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the Act), untoward incident includes the http: www.judis.nic.in accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
12.In this regard, it is useful to refer to [SECTION] of the Act, which reads thus:
(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-
[SECTION] of the [ACT];
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or
(iv) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
13.In [PRECEDENT], the Honble Supreme Court, while interpreting expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers, which is un untoward incident under [SECTION] of the Act and the consequential payment of compensation http: www.judis.nic.in under [SECTION] for such untoward incident, has held that it is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare Statue 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 liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 12 to 15 held as follows:
It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statue 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 states should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. The workmen [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT] etc.
14.In [PRECEDENT] this court observed:
In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this court in Workmen Vs. American Express http: www.judis.nic.in International Banking Corporation wherein [ENTITY], J. in para 4 of the Report has made the following observations:
The principals of statutory construction are well settled. Words occurring in statues of liberal import such a social welfare legislation and human rights legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations the imposture of literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication must be recognized and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned with the colour, the content and the context of such statues (we have borrowed the words from Lord [ENTITY] opinion in [PRECEDENT]).
15.In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that law is not to be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquire beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is not to be interpreted purely on internal linguistic considerations. In one of the cases cited before us, that is, [PRECEDENT] we had occasion to say:
Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of bread and butter statues. Welfare status must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, http: www.judis.nic.in the court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.
[ENTITY] in his Statutory Interpretation Second Edn., has dealt with the Functional Construction Rule in Part XV of his book. The nature of purposive construction is dealt with in [SECTION] at P.659 thus:
A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by-
(a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this code called a purposive and-literal construction), or
(b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the code called a purposive and strained construction)
17.At P.6661 of the same book, the author has considered the topic of Purposive Construction in contrast with literal construction. The learned author has observed as under:
Contrast with literal construction Although the http: www.judis.nic.in term purposive construction is not new, its entry into fashion betokens a swing by the appellate courts away from literal construction. Lord [ENTITY] said in 1975; If one looks back to the actual decisions of the (House of Lords) on questions of statutory construction over the last 30 years one cannot fail to be struck by the evidence of a trend away from the purely literal towards the purposive construction of statutory provisions. The matter was summed up by Lord [ENTITY] in this way-
I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language used would lead to results which would clearly defeat the purposes of the Act. But in doing so the task on which a court of justice is engaged remains of one of construction, even where this involves reading into the Act words which are not expressly included in it.
18.In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers in [SECTION] of the [ACT], we will be depriving a larger 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 travelling by air or in a private Car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression, we will be depriving a larger number of http: www.judis.nic.in victims of Train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the [ACT]. Hence, in our opinion, the expression accidental falling of a Passenger from a Train carrying Passengers includes accidents when a bonafide 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.
19.The finding of the tribunal that since the ticket was issued between 23 & 24 hrs. the claim is not bonafide, is not acceptable for the foregoing reason. There would have been a lapse in the registration of FIR or any malfunction in the self printing machine. The tribunal has focused it energy on a single aspect forgetting the larger issue. The claimants are common grieving people and not master mind criminals. In any case it is for the respondent to prove that the ticket was not purchased by the deceased and if someone has tampered with evidence it for the respondent to show and prove that someone has tampered with evidence. In the absence of any such evidence we find it unacceptable to turn down the claim of the appellants. It is a welfare legislation and it necessary to compensate the death of the deceased. http: www.judis.nic.in
20.The Honble Supreme Court in a recent decision in [PRECEDENT] has considered the issue whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/incident or on the date of order awarding compensation. In paragraph 15.1 the Honble Supreme Court held as thus:
15.1. In [ENTITY] (supra), this court considered the question whether the compensation to be applied would be as per Rules applicable on the date of the order or as per the Rules in force at the time of accident or the untoward incident. Reversing the view taken by the Kerala High Court that the liability to pay compensation arises as soon as accident happens and not when the quantum is determined, this court held that liability is to pay compensation as may be prescribed which means as on the date of the order of the Tribunal. This court observed that if interpretation placed by the Kerala High Court was to be accepted and the claimant was to get compensation in terms of the market value which prevailed on the date of the accident, the money value of the compensation will be reduced value on account of lapse of time. The revision of rate by the Central Government may itself show that the money value has come down. The Tribunal must apply the rate applicable as per the rules at the time of making of the order for payment of compensation. http: www.judis.nic.in
21.Thus, with the amendment of [SECTION] of the 1990 Rules with effect from January 1, 2017, the amount of compensation payable in case of death of a passenger as a result of untoward incident has been enhanced from Rs.4.00 lakhs to Rs.8.00 lakhs. There is no quarrel over the amendment of [SECTION] of the 1990 Rules by the respondent enhancing the compensation from Rs.4.00 lakhs to Rs.8.00 lakhs.
22. For the reasons aforesaid, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and allows the Claim Application in [CASE NUMBER] by holding that the appellants are entitled to compensation of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the respondent Railways from the date of lodging of the Claim application before the Tribunal till the date of payment. The compensation awarded by this court together with interest shall be paid by the respondent by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the appellants. Such cheque shall be deposited in the office of the Registrar General of this court within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereupon the appellants shall be entitled to collect the same from the Registrar General in equal share upon proving their identity and in http: www.judis.nic.in accordance with law. No costs.
[PRECEDENT]. http: www.judis.nic.in M.V.MURALIDARAN, J. vs 10.01.2019 http: www.judis.nic.in