Back
1994 Supreme(All) 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. P. SEMWAL
KUMARI SAVITRI ROY - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
First Appeal 481 Of 1979
Decided On : 01/06/1994
LALJI SINHA, NAVIN KUMAR SINHA, P.K.MUKHERJI
A railway servant on duty is a passenger for the purpose of the liability of the Railways under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act.
Headnote:
RAILWAYS ACT - SECTION 82-A - SECTION 124 - COMPENSATION - RAILWAY SERVANT ON DUTY IS A PASSENGER FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAYS.
Fact of the Case:
A collision occurred between two trains, resulting in the death of a TTE who was on duty at the time. The deceased's sister filed a claim for compensation under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, which was dismissed by the Claims Commissioner on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the word "passenger" in Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act includes railway employees who have lost their lives in a collision of trains, including the train in which they were employed. The court relied on a Division Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India v. Ram Devi, which held that a railway employee on duty is not an unauthorized person travelling by the train.
Issues: Whether a railway servant travelling on duty is a passenger for the purposes of the liability of the Railways.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased TTE was a passenger within the meaning of Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, as he was on duty at the time of the accident and was not travelling without permission. The court also held that the Claims Commissioner erred in dismissing the claim for compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed the Railway Administration to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the deceased's sister, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum if the amount was not paid within two months.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order D/ - 27-8-1979 passed in Claims Case No. 66 of 1977 Km. Savitri Roy v. Railways Administration by Ad hoc Claims Commissioner (Rlys), Allahabad, dismissing the claim for compensation of Km. Savitri Roy.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the admitted facts of the case, a collision took place between 103 UP Deluxe Express train and G. P. C. Special at Naini Railway Station on 10-10-77 at 0015 hours as a result of which S/ Sri R. N. Roy and Nand Kumar were admittedly killed while S/sri H. N. Bajpai, Sukhdeo Prasad and Madan Gopal admittedly sustained injuries. It is also admitted case of the parties that late Sri R. N. Roy, who was T. T. E. was on duty at the relevant time on 103 UP Deluxe Express Train which was involved in the accident. Kumari Savitri Roy (Since deceased) filed petition claiming herself to be unmarried sister and heir of late Sri R. N. Roy for grant of compensation u/s. 82a of the Indian Railways Act for the loss occasioned by his death. The Railway Administration filed written statement and resisted claim only on the ground that late R. N. Roy being a crew in 103 UP Deluxe Express Train on 10-10-77 to perform his duty was not a bona fide passenger and consequently the application was not maintainable under Section 82a of the Indian Railway Act. The Claims Commissioner came to the conclusion that late R. N. Roy was member of the crew and was not passenger in 103 UP Deluxe Express Train and consequently the application u/s. 82 A of the Indian Railways Act was not maintainable. In the result the application of Km. Savitri Roy was dismissed by a consolidated judgment dated 27-3-1979. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order Kumari Savitry Roy (since deceased) has filed this appeal u/s. 82f (2) of the Indian Railways Act. Kumari Savitri Roy died during the pendency of the appeal and Hardhan Banerji, in place of Savitri Roy, has been impleaded as appellant.
( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the word passenger used under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act does not necessarily mean the passenger travelling with a ticket. The said word has got a very comprehensive meaning and includes railway employee who has lost his life in collision of trains including the train in which he was employed and the application under S. 82-A of the Indian Railways Act was maintainable. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Devi reported in 1939 ACJ 896.
( 5 ) IN the aforecited case also, collision had taken place between two trains and Railway Engine Driver as well as Assistant Engine Driver lost their lives. The widows of the deceased preferred claim petitions separately for awarding of compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 and Rs. 1,50,000. 00 respectively in respect of death of their husbands. The Claim Commissioner awarded Rs. 50,000. 00 each to both the widows as compensation. It was against the aforesaid orders, Union of India filed the writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court after discussing the provisions of S. 82-A read with S. 82-H of the Indian Railways Act and referring to few rulings, came to the conclusion that one part of a statute need not to be read in isolation, and the primary consideration for a court interpreting a particular provision ought to be to advance the object and purpose of enactment even if it departs from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their clear meaning called for to prevent injustice. The Division Bench thus held that it could not be said that the deceased Railway Engine Driver and Assistant Engine Driver were totally unauthorised persons nor their travel could be said to be unauthorised in any way. It was thus concluded in para 12 that even by reading of S.
