IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.457 of 2004 NEELAM DEVI Versus UNION OF INDIA ----------- 7/ 16.09.2008 This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant Neelam Devi for setting aside the order dated 23.04.2004 passed by the Hon‟ble Vice Chairman Mr. V.K. Sahay and Hon‟ble Member (Judicial) Dr. G.R. Sharma of Railway Claim Tribunal, Mahendru Ghat, Patna, in Claim Application No. O.A. No. 9800068, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application of the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. The application was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal seeking compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 on account of death of her husband namely, Late Mushafir Ram in an “untoward incident” when he boarded in Train No. 236 Down on 12.01.1997 from Chauradano to Bairagnia station. As per her case, the train was abnormally over- crowded, as a result of which her husband was standing near the gate, when due to heavy rush and jerk of the train, he accidentally fell down therefrom near Gurahanwa Halt thereby sustaining grievous injuries resulting into his death. It was also pleaded by the 2 applicant/appellant that deceased Late Mushafir Ram was holding second class ticket from Chauradano to Bairagania which was lost due to the said accident. The application was filed by wife of the deceased. The respondent Railway filed their written statement stating therein that the deceased was trying to get down from the running train at Gurhanwa Halt knowingly well that Train No. 236 Down has no stoppage there, as a result of which he got injured and died. It has further been stated on behalf of the Railways that application was not maintainable either in law or on facts and so also denied status of the deceased as bona fide passenger. The following issues were framed before the Tribunal. 1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 2. Whether the incident covered under Section 123 (C) of the Railways Act, 1989 as untoward incident? 3. Whether the Respondent is protected under Section 124(a) (c) of the Railways Act. 1989? 4. Relief? The Tribunal after considering the facts and evidence on record has decided Issue No. 1 so far deceased being a bona fide passenger was concerned in favour of the claimant. But, Issues No. 2 and 3 have been decided against the claimant by holding that act of the deceased was nothing less than self inflicted 3 injury which does not fall under the expression “Accidental falling of any passengers” used in definition „Untoward Incident‟ in sub clause (2) (c) of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2004(1) ALT 100(FB) has been relied upon dealing with the provisions of Section 123, 124 and 124(A) of the Railways Act, and in the last the Tribunal concluded that applicant/appellant had failed to prove that deceased Mushafir Ram died in untoward incident in terms of Section 123(C) of the Railways Act, 1989 and thereafter Issue No. 4 was decided against the claimant and dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered her case in right perspective rather abruptly came to the conclusion that claimant failed to prove “untoward incident.” Reliance has been placed in Hon‟ble Apex Court judgment dated 05.05.2008 in Case Union of India Vs. Prabhakar Vijaya Kumar & Ors. passed in Appeal (Civil) 6898 of 2002, wherein it has been held that:“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 later of abovementioned two interpretations i.e. one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred in 4 Kunal Singh vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524. The brief facts of this referred case is that a claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by the husband, mother and minor son of one Smt. Abja Devi who died in a train accident, and the Claims Tribunal disallowed the claim, but the appeal against the said decision was allowed by the Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2001 and compensation of Rs. 2 lacs (Two lacs) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment was granted. Aggrieved, the appeal was by the Union of the India. There was no dispute so far passenger, being bona fide, was concerned and the deceased Abja Devi was found falling from Parasuram Express who died when the train was moving. It was a case that a girl was running towards a train and in the process of entering into the train she fell down from the running train and she met her accident. Of course, the Tribunal held that it was not within the meaning of „Untoward Incident‟ as expressed in section 123 (C) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from the train carrying passengers. But in the appeal, the Kerala High Court was of the view that the deceased sustained injuries in her anxiety to get into the train which was moving, and, so, deceased came within the expression „accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers‟ which is an „untoward incident‟, as defined in Section 5 123 (C) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has, thus, held in Para 10 which is quoted below: “We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an „accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers‟. Hence, it is an „untoward incident‟ as defined in Section 123 (C) of the Railways Act.” It has also been held in Paras 12, 13 and 14 which are quoted hereinbelow: (12) 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 statute should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647 (para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), (13) The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights‟ legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lillputian 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 statutes (we have borrowed the words from Lord Wilberforce‟s opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds). 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, Surender Kumar Verma vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court we had occasion to say: “Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of „bread and butter‟ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.” Francis Bennion 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 Part XX at p. 659 thus: 6 “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)”. “Purposive Construction” in contrast with literal construction. The learned author has observed as under: “Contrast with literal construction – Although the term „purposive construction‟ is not new, its entry into fashion betokens a swing by the appellate courts away from literal construction. Lord Diplock 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 Lord Diplock 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 one of the construction, even where this involves reading into the Act words which are not expressly included in it.” (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 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 7 down during the process. In other words, a purposive, a not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has, thus, held that Smt. Abja died which is covered by proviso to Section 123(C) of the Act. In the present fact and circumstance, it could be said that more or less it was the same position with the deceased Late Mushafir Ram, who has been held travelling with bona fide ticket and he had met his tragic end which could be covered within the meaning of „untoward incident‟. In Para 21 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as follows: “The principle of strict liability (also called no fault liability) was thus evolved, which was an exception to the general principle in the law of torts that there is no liability without fault.” It is a well-discussed judgment and, perhaps, it was not cited because of its being delivered on 05.05.2008. So, applying the same principle in view of similarity of facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the impugned order requires interference, so it is held that impugned order is not sustainable in law as also on facts. The death of deceased Late Mushafir Ram in the context of the matter could be said to be coming within the purview of „untoward incident‟. The age of the deceased as per petition was 25 years at the time of accident who was earning his livelihood by way of private teaching and amount of compensation was claimed for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lacs). Such evidence on the part of claimant/appellant led in course of proceeding in the Tribunal and has not been controverted. 8 Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. Thus, the said amount i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakh only) as claimed is directed to be paid by the Union of India (Railways) to the claimant/appellant within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be realised from the respondent. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed. Sanjeet (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)