An accident of a bus hired by the Railways is a railway accident for the purpose of compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim application of the appellant.

2. The appellant who happens to be the mother of the deceased Bideshi Mahato filed an application for grant of compensation for the death of her son. The claim application has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the deceased died in a bus accident and not railway accident. Various provisions of the Railways Act 1989 hereinafter referred to as (The Act) have been referred to. It appears that the Tribunal thought that if there is a collision between the two trains or there is a derailment, a passenger was entitled to a compensation in that situation only and not under any other circumstances. It has also been found that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger inasmuch as no ticket number was mentioned in the application and the same was not produced in evidence.

3. Some of the facts have not been disputed before us during the course of the arguments. It was not disputed that on account of flood, the passengers in Kamrup Express could not be carried beyond Gouripur in the district of Dhubri and the Railway Authorities had to carry the passengers by certain buses including ASTC bus (As-01-0087) on 18-8-93. The aforesaid bus met with an accident with another bus resulting in the death of two persons including the son of the appellant. It has further remained undisputed before us that the aforesaid bus was hired by the Railway Authorities for carrying the passengers.

4. In view of the aforementioned admitted facts the question arises whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to compensation as there was no Railway accident. The counsel for the claimant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has taken erroneous view in holding that since the bus has collided with another bus, it could not be termed as Railway accident. On the other hand the counsel for the Railway while defending the award of the Tribunal has, with equal vehemence argued that the view of the Tribunal is correct. Learned counsel has with reference to the provisions of Sections 123 and 124 argued that the accident means an accident of the nature described in Section 124 of the Act. While referring to the provision of Section 124 of the Act, the counsel has further argued that since there was no accident of the nature as described in Section 124, the liability of the Railway does not extend to the grant of compensation when the death has occurred on account of the collision of the bus carrying Railway passengers.

It has also been argued that the accident of the bus being not a direct consequence of any act of the Railways, no compensation can be granted on account of doctrine of remoteness. The precise argument of the counsel of the Railways is that the authorities could not foresee that there would be an accident of the bus carrying the passengers of Railways and therefore the claimant is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties it is necessary to have a look at the provision of the Act in the first instance -

123 Definitions - In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in Section 124.

124. Extent of liability - 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 exte