FAO No.1196 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O No.1196 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.07.2009 Union of India ....Appellant Versus Master Shah Nawaz, through his father and natural guardian; Mr. Mohd. Ahmed ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. A.S. Gagrha, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the respondent. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present appeal is being filed by the appellant against judgment dated 21-10-2008 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, vide which, the respondent-minor has been held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lac and fifty thousand only) @ 9% per ammun, on account of injuries received due to fall from the running train. FAO No.1196 of 2009 2 Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed claim application on 02-06-2006 for grant of compensation through his father and natural guardian, on account of injuries suffered by him in the alleged untoward incident that took place on 20-03-2006 at Doraha Railway Station. On 20-03-2006, the respondent was travelling accompanied with his mother, paternal uncle (Chacha) and two other family members from Ludhiana to Haridwar in train No.4610 Dn having only two valid tickets No.3231;PNR No.F8403231 and another no.3232; PNR No.48403232. Due to rush in general compartment at Ludhiana Railway Station, all the five family members could not enter in general compartment of the train. Therefore, in order to enter in the train, they entered in a Reserved Boggie. During the journey, TTE checked their tickets and pointed out that they cannot travel in the reserved compartment and advised when train stops, they should go to the general compartment of the train. Suddenly, the train stopped at Doraha Railway Station, then Mohd. Noshad Ahmed (paternal uncle of the respondent) asked all the family members to come down from the train and decided to go into general compartment of the train. They all entered in the general compartment of the train but due to rush in the compartment, they could not sit on the seats. Resultantly, they had to stand on their footsteps in the compartment. When the train was leaving Doraha Railway Station near gate No.164 BC, respondent suffered a jolt and fell down from the running train. Due to this, he got injuries and his right leg amputated from above knee by the wheels of the train. Accordingly, station memo was issued regarding the incident by Doraha Railway Station and the respondent was got admitted to Sidhu Hospital, Doraha and then shifted to CMC Hoshiptal, Ludhiana for further treatment. FAO No.1196 of 2009 3 Learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the order, submitted that as per Section 2(29) of the Railway Act. 1989, the definition of “passenger” means a person travelling with valid pass or ticket, but since, the respondent was travelling without holding valid ticket, he is not entitled to claim under Section 124-A of Compensation on account of untoward incidents. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, pointed out that the said argument was incorrect and the injured respondent, who was then minor and only 13 years of age, had a valid ticket and this is obvious from the findings and report of the DRM which is reproduced below :- “ In this case, enquiry was conducted by IPF/SIR. During the course of enquiry, it is found that a memo was issued by SS/Doraha on 20-03-2006 about a person had fallen down from train No.4610 Dn and got serious injury. On receipt of memo GRP/RPF attended the spot, but nobody was present on the spot. On enquiry, it was found that the injured was admitted in Sidhu Hospital, Doraha by co- passengers who were travelling with deceased person. Co-passengers had shown two Railway Tickets no.F-48403231, AD=4 & F-48403232, AD=1 to GRP. On verification of tickets, it was found that tickets were issued from booking office, Ludhiana. As per statement of co-passengers travelling with the deceased, they had purchased general tickets and boarded in sleeper class. After departure from Ludhiana, TTE told them to change the coach at next station as they had general tickets. They all approached towards the gate of coach to alight from train at next station. As per statement of Md. Aquil & Md. Naushad co-passengers, it reveals that Shanawaj was standing at the footboard of the coach and after FAO No.1196 of 2009 4 just departure from Doraha Railway Station, he slipped off from foot board and got cut his right leg and other leg badly injured.” The finding on issue No.1 has also been recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, which is as follows :- “ Issue No.1 The applicant has intimated particulars of train number, ticket number and other companions during the journey and that when the injured was travelling by the train and he fell down while the train was running as has been informed from the station memo as well as station record and police papers and affidavits; DRM report, as filed by respondent also admits the particulars of tickets, mentioned by the applicant. Therefore, this issue is concluded in favour of the applicant that he was a bonafide passenger, as alleged in the claim application.” It is obvious that factually incorrect argument has been raised. The respondent was a bona fide passenger and was travelling against a valid ticket along with his family. The two tickets were issued for four persons and one person, respectively i.e. for a total of five passengers. Such an argument, therefore, deserves to be rejected outrightly. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, further submitted that the accident did not fall under the definition of untoward incident as the respondent himself was negligent as he was standing on his foot steps in the door of the compartment of the running train and hence, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation. There is no merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the judgment, reported in the case of Union of India v. FAO No.1196 of 2009 5 Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (2008) ACJ 1895, which is as follows :- “ XXX XXX XXX XXX 14. 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 the 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 umber 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. XXX XXX XXX 16. The accident in which Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion, the present case is clearly covered by the main body of section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. 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.” In view of the above, the arguments that it was not the fault on the part of the Railways and that there was a contributory negligence, is FAO No.1196 of 2009 6 misconceived. In various social welfare Acts like the Workmen Compensation Act, the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to people against death and injuries, irrespective of fault. In view of the above discussion, there is not merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 31.07.2009 JUDGE gurpreet