JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellants have challenged the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby their application for compensation has been dismissed.

2. On 25th July, 2008, Jagbir Singh was waiting for a train on the platform of Mangolpuri Railway Station when he accidently fell down on the railway track due to the over-crowd and was ran over by Awadh Assam Express Train. The deceased was survived by widow and two minor children who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket at the time of accident. However, learned Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that Section 123(c) of the Railways Act only covers the cases of the passengers who accidently fall down from the train. Learned Tribunal held that since the deceased has not fallen down from the train, the claim does not come within the definition of an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.

4. Section 124A of the Railways Act lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of untoward incidents. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines `untoward incident' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. The word `passenger' has been defined under section Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The Explanation to Section 124A clarifies that the word `passenger' includes a railway servant on duty; and a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

5. The aforesaid provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation which should receive a liberal and wider interpretation as it would advance the object of the statute and serve its purpose. The untoward incident shall cover the accidents suffered by a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger with a valid ticket, pass or a platform ticket in the railway premises.

6. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ 1895 (SC), the Supreme Court held that 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. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

10. 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.

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 v. Union of India, [(2003) 4 SCC 524: 2003 SCC (L&S) 482] (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd., [(2002) 1 SCC 193: 2002 SCC (L&S) 131] (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn., [(2000) 1 SCC 332: 2000 SCC (L&S) 121]

12. It is well settled that if the words used in a