HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1048 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1989 (for short “the Act”), is directed against the order made in O.A.A. No.276 of 1999 dated 02-08-2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is respondent in the O.A. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.A. 4. It appears, the applicants along with their son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter boarded the train into the second class general compartment of Mumbai (Kurla) – Coimbatore Express at Gunthakal to go to Ananthapur and while the train was in movement, Shaik Hussain Saheb (hereinafter referred to as “deceased” for brevity), son of the applicants, fell down accidentally from the running train at KM – 245/3- 4 between Ramarajupalli and Kalluru Railway Stations due to speed and jerk of the train, sustained injuries and died on 11-08-1999 in the evening hours. Therefore, the applicants, who are parents of the deceased, filed the claim claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act for the death of their son in the untoward accident. 5. A written statement was filed by the Railways – respondent denying the contentions of the applicants. Further, it was stated that death of the deceased was on account of fall from the train and due to rash, negligent and criminal act of the deceased himself by way of travelling at the door step of the railway compartment as mentioned in paragraph Nos.IX, X, XX and XXIII of the inquest report and that his death was due to accidental fall from the train. Further, the circumstances and other facts of the case disentitle the applicants from claiming any compensation for self-inflicted injuries. Apart from that deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the train, because inquest report does not mention anything about the tickets and the tickets quoted by the applicants in the application are planted one. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Shaik Hussain Saheb ? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.1013 Mumbai (Kurla) – Coimbatore Express travelling from Guntakal to Anantapur on 11-8-1999 ? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Ramarajupalli and Kalluru railway stations ? 4. To what relief ? 7. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.2 examined herself through sworn affidavit dated 03-10-2002 and also marked documents, Exs.A-1 to A-6. She was cross-examined on behalf of the railways. The railways have lead the evidence of Deputy Station Superintendent, Zangalapalle as RW.1 through his affidavit dated 22- 07-2003 and he was cross-examined and through him, document Ex.R-1 was marked. 8. After detailed examination of the entire material placed before it, the Tribunal, though came to the conclusion that the applicants are dependents of the deceased and he was bona fide passenger in train No.1013 Mumbai (Kurla) – Coimbatore express, travelling from Guntakal to Anantapur on 11-08-1999, however, insofar as issue No.3 is concerned, it was held that accident occurred cannot be treated as an untoward incident and therefore the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved of the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants – applicants Sri P. Sridhar Reddy strenuously contended that once it is found that the applicants are the dependents of the deceased and the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train and he died in the railway accident, the Tribunal had no other option except coming to the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident. However, failed to give such a finding and it had erroneously held that it was not an untoward incident. 10. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the railways – respondent supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that AW.1, who is none other than the mother of the deceased, stated that deceased was sitting at the door of the railway compartment, and therefore, it must be deemed that the deceased was negligent and the injuries suffered by him are self-inflicted injuries due to fall from the railway compartment, therefore, it cannot be said to be an untoward incident under law, and, as such, the Tribunal has rightly held so and denied for awarding any compensation. 11. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the impugned order and the other material made available on record. 12. In the claim petition, there was no mention that the deceased was sitting at the door of the railway compartment at the time of accident nor it is the case of the railways that he was sitting at door side and has fallen because of his own negligence. It appears, the sole inspiration for the affidavit filed in chief by AW-1 was the inquest report Ex.A-4, Column No.15, which reads as under: “As seen from the place of occurrence, statement of mother, brother and sister of the deceased, state of the body and injuries, it is our unanimous opinion that the deceased travelled along with his relatives from Guntakal to Anantapur in general compartment of train No.1013 Express of 11.8.1999 sitting at the door, slipped and accidentally fell down from the speeding train….” 13. It appears, though what AW.1 stated was only that lastly she had seen the deceased sitting near the door step, except this, there is no evidence on record to show that how and when he slipped from the railway compartment and died. It seems, only when they reached Ananthapur, applicants found that deceased was missing and on enquiries and on the report given by a Gang Man, 2½ hours thereafter, it came to known that the deceased died. 14. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased died by falling from the railway compartment while sitting at the door side. When the mother of the deceased, AW.1, had seen the deceased on the last occasion, was near the door of the railway compartment, but not as to how and when he had fallen from the compartment. Therefore, it can only be assumed that it was in an untoward incident, deceased fell down from the train and died due to the injuries suffered by him. Except that, there is no possibility of drawing any other presumption in view of the proved facts, that deceased died in an untoward incident, due to fall from the railway compartment of running train. 15. Though the learned counsel for the railways tried to put the entire evidence against the applicants to say that the deceased was negligent and the applicants are not entitled to any compensation that need not be gone into in view of the decision of the Supreme Court made in Appeal (Civil) No.6898 of 2002 dated 05-05-2008 in UNION OF INDIA v. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR[1], wherein it was held that: “(11) NO doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’, the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9), B.D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12), Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc. (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 strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen air (Sic. AIR) 1961 SC 647 (para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S.M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12) etc. (14) IN our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger form 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 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 passengers’ 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.” 16. In view of the above, I am also of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the railways that there was no fault on the part of the railways and that there was total negligence on the part of the deceased, is based on a total misconception and absolutely there was no evidence to this effect, therefore the same needs to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 17. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the deceased died due to an untoward incident falling from the railway compartment of running train, and therefore, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till its realisation. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal in O.A.A. No.276 of 1999 dated 02-08-2005 is set aside and the claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of their application before the Tribunal till its realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J July 8, 2010. PV [1] 2008(9) SCC 527