IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. MATHUR, V. SARAN
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
GAYATRI SRIVASTAVA - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 178 Of 2002
Decided On : 05/24/2002
Railway Claims Tribunal - Compensation for death in train accident - Railways Act, 1987, Section 123, Section 124-A - The court discussed the relevant statutory provisions of the Railways Act, including the definition of untoward incident and the provision for compensation in case of an untoward incident. The court interpreted the provisions broadly to extend the benefit of compensation to the claimants, even though the accident occurred before the enactment of the relevant amendment. The court also emphasized the liberal construction of beneficial legislation and cited precedent to support its interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava in a train accident. The appellant contended that the deceased committed suicide and that the claimants were not entitled to compensation due to the timing of the accident and the subsequent amendment of the Railways Act. The appellant also raised jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the claim petition to the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased did not commit suicide and that the claimants were entitled to compensation under the Railways Act. The court also held that the transfer of the claim petition to the Railway Claims Tribunal was valid and that the jurisdictional objections raised by the appellant were technical in nature.
Issues: The issues involved the cause of the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation, and the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant statutory provisions broadly to extend the benefit of compensation to the claimants, emphasizing the liberal construction of beneficial legislation. The court also held that the transfer of the claim petition to the Railway Claims Tribunal was valid and that the jurisdictional objections raised by the appellant were technical in nature.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the claimants were entitled to compensation under the Railways Act.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal act, 1987, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17. 1. 2002 of the claims Tribunal by which the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 was allowed and respondent No. 1 was awarded rs. 1,50,000 and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were awarded Rs. 50,000 each as compensation on account of death of Ramesh chandra Srivastava in a train accident.
( 2 ) THE claimant-respondent No. 1 is the widow and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the minor children of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava who was working as fitter grade I in North-Eastern Railway and was posted at Ballia Railway Station. On 7. 2. 1994 he was going from Gorakhpur to Ballia and at 21. 10 hours while alighting from 511-Up train at Indara Railway Station, he slipped and fell down from the train. His leg was amputated as the train ran over him. The station staff rescued him and sent him to Mau Railway Station for treatment but when he reached the hospital he was declared dead. The claimants-respondents preferred a claim petition which has been allowed by the impugned order.
( 3 ) MR. Lalji Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the deceased, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, committed suicide and, therefore, his dependants cannot claim compensation. He has also submitted that Ramesh Chandra srivastava died on 7. 2. 1994, which is prior to the enforcement of the amendment of the Railways Act by the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 28 of 1994), which came into force on 28. 4. 1994 and, therefore, the claimants wefe not entitled to any compensation.
( 4 ) BEFORE examining the contentions raised, it will be useful to notice the relevant statutory provisions. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act deals with liability of railway administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. By the Railway (Amendment) Act, 1994, subsection (c) in section 123, relating to definitions, and a new section 124-A were added and the relevant provisions thereof are being reproduced below:"123 (c) untoward incident means: (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (II) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (III) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloakroom or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 124 A. Compensation on account of untoward incident. When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, 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 the dependant of a passenger who has been killed 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 extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to (A) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by said untoward incident. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, passenger includes (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for trav
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.