The principle of strict liability and the need for a purposive interpretation of legal provisions to ensure compensation for victims of train accidents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987, the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.(II-U) 52/2017 be set aside granting an award for the statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (vide Gazette Notification with effect from 01.01.2017) together with interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing of the claim application viz., 03.04.2017 till the date of payment and the costs of the proceedings.)

1. The applicants in O.A.(II-U) 52 of 2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, are the appellants herein. They are the parents of A.Pandian, who, while travelling up to Guindy on 18.07.2016 in the EMU electric train running from Tambaram to Chennai Beach and accidentally fell down from the running train and suffered grievous injuries and died at the spot, when the train was running between Pallavaram and Trisoolam Railway Stations.

2. They preferred the aforementioned petition, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) with interest from the date of the application till date of payment at 9% per annum and also for costs.

3. The said application had been filed under Section 13(1) (ii) and Section 16 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 123 (c) (2), 124-A and 125 of The Railways Act, 1989.

4. That application came up for consideration before the Tribunal and by Order dated 25.10.2017, the application was dismissed. Questioning that particular Order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.

5. It is the claim of the appellants that their son A.Pandian, was traveling up to Guindy on 18.07.2016 in the local EMU Electric Train, which runs from Tambaram to Beach. At around 03.07 p.m, when the train was running between Pallavaram and Trisoolam stations, there was a sudden jolt in the train and he fell down on the railway track and suffered grievous injuries and died at the spot. Seeking compensation, they had preferred the claim petition.

6. The respondent/Union of India, owing Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager, Chennai, had filed a reply, contending that the deceased had travelled near the door leaning out side the coach and was hit by the signal post and fell down, and they therefore contended, it was a self-inflicted injury. It was also contended that he was not a bonafide passenger as the ticket was not recovered from him. It was therefore stated that the accident cannot be termed as an “Untoward Incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of Railways Act, 1989, and that therefore, the respondent was not liable to pay compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

7. The Tribunal took up for consideration as the first issue, whether the applicants/defendants were entitled for compensation, and answered it in the affirmative since they were the parents.

8. The Tribunal then took up the next issue, namely, whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and in this connection, examined the deposition of AW1/mother of the deceased, wherein, she had stated that she had filed an affidavit and also stated that A.Pandian was working in a Petrol Bunk at Alandur, Chennai and had purchased a ticket and that she had produced the ticket before the Tribunal. It was further seen that the records did not however contain the ticket. It was also observed that in the report of “Untoward incident” filed by the guard of the train, it had been mentioned that one young male was hit by the signal post and fell down. It was also observed that the Inquest report also showed that the deceased was hit by the signal post and fell down between Pallavaram and Trisoolam Railway Stations. The final report concluded that the deceased was hit by the signal post and fell down from the train.

9. The Tribunal then examined an earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A (II-U) 20/2015 dated 16.09.2015, wherein, the Tribunal had held that there is sufficient distance between the