Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
Maurice K.Lai & Another - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Owning Southern Railway Rep. by its General Manager Chennai - Respondents
C.M.A. No. 1389 of 2016
Decided On : 31-01-2018
For the Appellants : Sanjay Pinto for M/s. J.M. Dharma Sanjeevi
For the Respondent: M.T. Arunan
The burden of proving that the victim is not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways, and non-production of the Railway ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants.
Headnote:
Railway Ticket - Compensation Claim - Railways Act, 1989, Section 123(c), Section 124A - The court discussed the interpretation of 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' and the liability of the Railways to pay compensation. The court emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of beneficial or welfare statutes and the presumption that a passenger in a train holds a valid ticket. The burden of proving that the victim is not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways, and non-production of the Railway ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a compensation claim for the death of a passenger who fell from a train. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition due to non-production of the train ticket by the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the burden of proving that the victim was not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways, and non-production of the Railway ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants.
Issues: Non-production of the train ticket and the burden of proof regarding the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger.
Ratio Decidendi: The Railways have the burden of proving that the victim was not a bona fide passenger, and non-production of the Railway ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fixing the quantum of compensation.
Challenging the order passed in OA (II-U) 263 of 2014 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, the claimants have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The claimants filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of one Mathew Lai.
3. According to the appellants, the deceased had travelled as a passenger between Kodambakkam Railway Station and Nungambakkam Railway Station and due to sudden jerk of the Train accidentally fell down and suffered multiple injuries. He was found dead and FIR was lodged by Station Superintendent and a case was registered at the Egmore Railway Police Station in Crime No. 446 of 2013 dated 31.07.2013. The inquest was conducted by the Inspector of Police and the Panchayatars have unanimously held that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered from the accidental fall from the Train. The Train ticket purchased by the deceased was lost in the course of accident and hence, the claimants could not produce the same before the Tribunal.
4. The respondents filed their counter stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as he was not having any ticket at the time of the accident.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the appellants, A.W.1 was examined and 5 documents, Exs. A.1 to A.5 were marked. Since the ticket was lost in the course of the accident, the same was not produced by the claimants before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the available evidence, dismissed the petition finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger for the reason that he was not possessing the railway ticket.
7. Heard Mr. Sanjay Pinto, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. Mr. Sanjay Pinto, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants submitted that non-production of the train ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants and that the burden of proof lies on the respondent/Railways to establish that the victim was not a bona fide passenger. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is whether the non-production of the Railway ticket is fatal to the case of the claimants or not. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgements:-
(i) 2008 (4) MLJ 323 [Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar and others], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 held as follows:-
"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 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. 13. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others 1995(6) SCC 326 this Court observed:
"In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this Court in Workmen vs. American Express International Banking Corporation wherein Chinnappa Reddy, J. in para 4 of the Report has made the following observations:
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 Lilliputian 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', th
