1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 725 of 2005 1] Wamanrao s/o Venkaji Nitnavare, Age 55 years, Occu. Labour, R/o Suyash Colony, Agriculture University Road, Behind Collector Office, Parbhani. 2] Nivruti S/o Wamanrao Nitnavare, Age 35 years, Occu. Labour, r/o Suyash Colony, Agricultural Unversity road, Behind Collector Office, Parbhani. Appellants (Ori. Claimant) V E R S U S Union of India, Through General Manager, South-Central Railway, Secundrabad Respondent (Ori. Respondent) Shri P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for appellants Shri. Manish Navandar, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 26th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Members, Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in Claim Application No. 69 of 2004. The appellants were the claimants. The appellants claimed that they were dependents of one Limbabai, who died due to accidental fall from Train No. 1603 on 10th April, 2004, at about 01.00 a.m. The appellant No. 1 said, Limbabai was his wife, and the appellant No. 2 said, she was 2 his mother. The facts on which the claim application is based, are as under : 2. Limbabai and her friend Bainabai came to Devalgaon (Awachar) railway station on 9th April, 2004, at about 11.30 p.m. They intended to go to Parbhani by train No. 1603, which was scheduled to arrive at that station some time after mid-night. They purchased railway tickets at the railway station for Parbhani. They boarded the train which was heavily crowded. Limbabai was standing near the door of compartment and she fell down due to sudden jerk. She died on the spot. Bainabai, her friend, and the other passengers who saw Limbabai falling down from the train, pulled alarm chain to stop the train. Thereafter, spot panchanama, inquest panchanama etc. were conducted by the police. The dead body was sent for postmortem, and thereafter, it was handed over to Limbabai’s relative for last rites. The railway administration opposed the claim on all counts. They denied that the appellants were related to the deceased, they mentioned that the women who died, was not identified, and therefore, the appellants cannot claim that they are relatives of the deceased. The railway administration also asserted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and had not purchased a ticket for the train in which she traveled. They alleged further that the tickets which the appellant brought on record are planted to claim compensation. In view of these rival pleadings, the learned Members, Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the parties to lead evidence and ultimately held that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation. 3. After hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties and after going through the original record, following 3 points arose for my consideration : 1] Whether appellants prove that the dead body that was found near the railway track on 10th April, 2004 belonged to Limbabai their wife and mother, respectively? 2] Whether they further prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3] Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation? 4. It is common ground that a middle aged woman, died due to accidental fall from a train carrying passengers during the night of 9th and 10th April, 2004. It is also common ground that she fell down from train No. 1603. Immediately after the incident, the train was stopped and the incident was reported to the railway police. It is common ground that the railway police then initiated inquiry under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the accidental death of unknown woman. It is not in dispute that the police conducted inquest immediately after the incident and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The record shows that the railway authorities and the medical officer who conducted postmortem did not know the identity of the dead body. At every stage till then it was referred as “an unknown woman aged about 40 years”. But the appellants have brought on record a document depicting that the appellant No. 2 took the dead body in his charge for last rites. This document is produced on record and has not been denied by the respondents. The receipt of dead body was apparently obtained by a police constable attached with the Government Railway Chowki, Parbhani conducting the enquiry u/s 174 Cr.P.C., and it was executed by the appellant No. 2. In this receipt, the appellant No. 2 clearly mentioned that the dead body belonged to his mother Limbabai, aged 48 years, and that, he would take the dead body in his charge/custody, after the postmortem examination, for the purpose of last rites. Unless the 4 respondents prove this document being a forgery, they are not able to deny the appellants claim that the name of the deceased was Limbabai w/o Wamanrao Nitnavare, and that she was related to the appellants. In my view, the stand that the name of the deceased was not Limbabai and she was not related to the appellants was rather irresponsible. The provisions of Section 174 and 176 of Criminal Procedure Code inter alia contemplate inquiry as regards to the identity of the deceased also. The Police Officer who conducts inquiry under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code has been given powers to interrogate those who could be acquainted with the facts of the case and such persons would be bound to answer the questions truthfully. So, in this case, the police officer conducting the inquiry under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, ought to have found out the cause of death and even the identity of the dead body. In this regard, the police officer apparently learn about the identity of the deceased after the postmortem examination. Apparently, the police officer was approached by the appellant No. 2 for the purpose of identification of the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquiry, I am sure, the police officer must have recorded a formal statement of the appellant No. 2 about the identity of the deceased and his relation to her. He must have sent complete report of this incident to the concerned Magistrate under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Ministry of Railways in exercise of power to Section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 22 of General Clauses Act, 1897 made certain Rules which are called as Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward incidents) Rules, 2003. These Rules on the date of incident they were in force. Inter alia these Rules provided procedure as to how an officer of the railway protection force, on receipt of information in respect of 5 an untoward incident should carry out investigation into such incident and submit a report. Rule No. 7 for this purpose is required to be quoted below :- “Rule No. 7 Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Force :- (1) on receipt of information under rule 6, an officer of the Force, not below the rank of Inspector, shall carry out the investigation and shall, - (i) obtain copies of the inquest report, postmortem report and Jama Talashi report from the police investigating the incident; (ii) Obtain copy of the technical survey carried out by the railway official nominated by the Station Superintendent; (iii) Obtain information about the untoward incident in Form-2; (iv) Record statement of additional witnesses, if so required; (v) collect any other evidence required by the circumstances of the case.” It is clear from this rule that the officer of the force on completing investigation, should submit a report of the incident to the authorities or his superiors. Since such a report is mainly based on the report of the police under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, the officer making inquiry would heavily depend on the information he gets from the report made by police under Section 174. The rule further requires the officer of the force to submit a report in form No. 2, in which amongst other things name, age and address of the passenger are required to be mentioned. It is not clear whether such a report was sent in this case, but the respondent railway administration has feigned ignorance of such a report and feigning such ignorance is clearly a dishonesty on their part. The railway administration it seems out of over enthusiasm in defending this case have taken this dishonest stand. But what about the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal? Why they did not probe this case in this direction. They simply ignored the record of the case, 6 especially the receipt of the dead body. They simply observed in the judgment: “there is no evidence to corroborate that the unknown female as indicated in Accident Death Report, Spot panchanama, Inquest panchanama and postmortem report is Smt. Limbabai herself. Therefore, the identity of the deceased is not established.” This finding, in view of the discussion above is not only erroneous but is even callous. I am constrained to observe that the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal neglected their duty in perusing the record properly. I hold that, the appellants have proved the identity of the deceased as “Limbabai W/o Wamanrao Nitnavare”. The question still remains, as to whether the appellants could prove that they are her relatives as her husband and son, respectively. The appellant No. 1 did not enter in the witness box and did not state on oath that Limbabai was his wife. On the other hand, the appellant No. 2 said that he was 35 years old and Limbabai was his mother. The learned Advocate for the Railway administration pointed out that in all the relevant documents, the age of the deceased was shown to be 40 years, and it makes the appellant No.2 claim that he was her son dubious. On careful perusal of the receipt of the dead body, it is seen that the appellant No. 2’s has mentioned his age as 32 years, whereas his mother's(deceased) age was mentioned as 48 years. Apparently, the difference in the ages was about 16 years. Limbabai thus could be his mother. As regards the mentioning of the age of the deceased in the documents, such as postmortem report, inquest panchanama etc., as 40 years, it can be easily said that the age is mentioned on the basis of approximation. A better proof of her age is the word of her son. 7 5. In view of the definition of term ‘dependent’ given in Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989. The husband and son would be dependent of deceased, no matter whether they financially depend on her or not. The appellants thus proved that they were dependents of deceased Limbabai. Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 is as under : “ Section 123(b) : “ “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely :- (i) the wife, husband son and daughter and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parents; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger. (iii) a minor child of a pre-decesed daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv)the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;” 6. Let me examine whether Limbabai was a bonafide passenger of railways at the time of incident. The appellants brought on record two original railway tickets, which are annexed at page No. 49 of the record of the Lower Court. The rubber stamp on them shows that the tickets were issued on 9th April, 2004. But time of issuance is not mentioned on them. The witness of the appellants stated on oath that on 9th April, 2004 at about 11.30 p.m., deceased Limbabai had bought these tickets. She said that those tickets were bought from Railway ticket contractor at Devalgaon (Awachar) railway station. In the cross-examination she stated that she had personally seen Limbabai buying the tickets. As against this, the railway administration tried to prove that the tickets were not sold for the purpose of traveling in train No. 1603 which arrived at the station on 10th April, 2004. They recorded deposition of one Tukaram the Railway ticket contractor at Devalgaon (Awachar) railway station, who admitted that the tickets in question were issued by him on 9th April, 2010. But, he 8 asserted that he issued those tickets for the purpose of another train namely train No. 591, which arrived at Devalgaon (Awachar) on 10.25 a.m. However, he has not categorically stated that during the night between 9/4/2004 and 10/04/2004 he did not sale any tickets for the purpose of train No. 1063, which admittedly arrived at Devalgaon (Awarchar) railway station during night hours (00.20hrs.). So, there is every possibility of the passengers intending to travel during that night approaching this witness for buying their tickets. Thus, the evidence of this witness can not rule out the possibility that Limbabai bought the tickets for her travel during that night for train No. 1603. The Appellant thus proved that Limbabai was a bonafide passenger of the train. 7. The respondent Railway administration opposed the claim stating that Limbabai was negligent while she stood in the door way of the compartment and thus the injuries she sustained, were self-inflicted injuries. 8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 provides provisions for “liability of Railway administration for death and injury to passenger due to accident”. The scheme of Chapter XIII is quite peculiar. On one hand, it clearly lays down that the Railway administration is strictly liable to pay compensation to its passengers irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of Railway administration. But, on the other hand, the provisions limit the compensation to a prescribed amount. The provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 further lays down that the claims arising from Chapter XIII and other provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 would be entertained and decided only by the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It also provides bar of jurisdiction under Section 15 on other Courts or authority, for 9 deciding such Claims. The nature of the scheme clearly shows that the provisions for compensation in Chapter XIII is a beneficial piece of legislation. In this back ground, one has to appreciate the facts of the case and interprete the provisions of Chapter XIII. 9. Section 124 defines the accident as contemplated by Chapter XIII. It reads as under. Section 124:- “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 passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed 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, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident” From these provisions, following incidents are accidents as contemplated by Chapter XIII. (i) Collision between Trains of which one is a train carrying passengers. (ii) The derailments of any part of a Train carrying passengers. (iii) Any other accident to a Train carrying passengers, in addition to these kinds of accidents. Chapter XIII also defines an unusual term namely 10 “untoward incident”. Section 123(c) defines it as under:- “Untoward incident” means - (1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987), or (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 (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 10. It is clear that Chapter XIII has recognized that a bonafide passenger of Railway administration is likely to get injured, killed etc. in an accident or due to an untoward incident. 11. Section 124A further provides as to when the Railway administration would be liable to compensate its bonafide passenger who sustains injury or get killed as a result of such untoward incident. Section 124-A reads as under. “Compensation on account of untoward incidents:- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, 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 passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of 11 such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to - (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. 12. The first part of Section 124 clearly lays down the 'rule of strict liability'. Proviso to Section 124-A makes exceptions to the general rule of strict liability in following types of cases. (i) Suicidal death; (ii) Injuries caused in attempted suicide; (iii) Self inflicted injury; (iv) The passenger’s own criminal act; (v) An act committed by a bona fide passenger in a state of intoxication or insanity or in case the injury is caused due to natural cause or disease or surgical treatment etc.. 13. In this case, Limbabai's fall from the running train has not been denied. The respondent Railway administration tried to bring this fall within the mischief of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 124-A. The question therefore, is whether her fall from the running train was an incident of self-infliction of injury. This question was dealt with by the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment and they held that since she negligently stood in the door way of the compartment of a running train, it was an act of negligence on her part and so they held that resultant injury suffered was self- inflicted injury. While drawing such conclusion, the learned Members took support from a Full Bench judgment of Andhra 12 Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K. Balakrishnaiah and others reported in 2004(2) T.A.C. 130. But the law on this subject is finally settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and others reported in 2009(1) Mh.L.J. Page 27. The Supreme Court in this judgment interalia held that- “The provisions for compensation in the Railways Act is beneficial piece of legislation and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not narrow and technical one.” The Supreme Court in this judgment discussed the scope of principle of strict liability which is made applicable in our country through the landmark judgment of Supreme Curt in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1086. The Supreme Court observed that in India, the judgment of M.C. Mehta’s case imposed principle of strict liability in our country without any restriction. In that judgment the Supreme Court has observed - “If the enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads”. The Supreme Court in this judgment also held that Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 incorporates the principle of strict liability. Saying so the Supreme Court further held as under. “However, apart from the principle of strict liability in Section 124-A of the Railways Act and other statutes, 13 we can and should develop the law of strict liability dehors statutory provisions in view of the Constitutional Bench decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta’s case. In our opinion, we have to develop new principles for fixing liability in cases like the present one”. 14. In Prabhakaran's case, the Supreme Court was dealing with peculiar facts. It was a case where the deceased woman was trying to catch the moving train. While she was running after the train and trying to enter the train, she fell down and got killed. The appellant union of India(Railway administration) asserted that it was not a case of accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. But the Supreme Court held as under. “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 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 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 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”. 14 15. In view of this judgment, there is hardly any scope for the respondent to submit that Limbabai had sustained self inflicted injuries. Even on facts, I would not accept the argument of the respondent that Limbabai was negligent when she chose to stand in the door way of a running train. It has come in the evidence that the train was crowded and that could have compelled her to accommodate herself in the door way of the compartment. It is common knowledge that though the Railways mention on each railway compartment its passenger carrying capacity boldly written on the compartment, the crowding passengers defy such instructions and enter compartments sitting almost on each others heads. So the appellants have amply proved that Limbabai died in an untoward incident. 16. The next question is whether the appellant would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990? The answer is obviously in affirmative. The appellants are entitled to a fixed amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lakh). The rules do not provide for payment of