Back
2002 (2) JLJ 289
Rajeev Gupta and A.K. Mishra, JJ.
Union of India v. Smt. Mulko Bai
Misc. Appeal No. 1114 of 1999; against award passed in O.A. No. 424 of 1997, by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal;
Decided on 16.5.2001.
The claim petition was filed before the Claims Tribunal on 25.1.1993. It appears that the Claims Tribunal, vide order dated 14.12.1994, ordered the claim petition to be transferred to the civil Court for its trial. The case was transferred to the civil Court for trial before the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge. Later on, an objection was raised by the Union of India about the jurisdiction of civil Court to try the case based on section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion on 18.9.1997 that the case is triable by Railway Claims Tribunal only, hence, the case was transmitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has passed an award which has been assailed in the present appeal. [Para 2
Held: From a bare reading of section 24 r/w section 13 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 it is transparent that if case is pending before a civil Court which would have been covered by section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, had the said provision being in force at the relevant time when the accident took place, such case shall stand transferred to the Railways Claims Tribunal. In other words, the cases of all untoward incidents pending before any Court, Claim Commissioner or authority immediately before appointed day shall stand transferred if they had arisen after the appointed day or the date of commencement of the provision of sub-section (1A) of section 13, are within the jurisdiction and are triable by the Claims Tribunal. ... In view of the allegations made in the claim petition and the facts found by the Tribunal, section 124A of the Railways Act, is clearly invokable for the limited purpose of deciding the jurisdiction of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 with the interaction and mutual aid of -interpretation of section 13 read with section 24 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 without meaning to decide that section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 is retrospective in operation or not, but, so far as jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned, provisions of Sec. 13(1A) and section 24 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 are amply clear and we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was only the Railway Claims Tribunal who was having the jurisdiction in view of section 13(1A) read with section 24 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 to give a trial and pass an award in the instant case and the case was rightly transferred by the civil Court. In our opinion, section 124A of Railways Act has to be read in conjunction with section 13 and section 24 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act so as to find out whether accident would be an untoward accident, had it taken place after commencement of section 124A of Railways Act as amended in 1994 as all such cases pending irrespective of date of their taking place stand transferred to Railways Claims Tribunal. [Paras 10 & 11
(2) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 -- S. 13(1A) -- case transferred from civil Court to Railways Claims Tribunal on objection of jurisdiction -- award passed by Tribunal -- Railways cannot be geared to object the jurisdictional competence of Tribunal. 2000 AIR SCW 1734 followed. [Para 12
(3) Railways Act, 1989 -- Ss. - 124A and 123(c) (as amended in 1994) -- though amendment not retrospective and accident is no ‘untoward incident‘ as defined in 1994 by inserting S. 123(c) -- yet case can be decided on the breach of Common law duty and other duties which lie on Railways as well. AIR 1998 SC 1659 followed. [Para 14
(4) Statute -- common law duties are besides the duties under the statute -- claimants are entitled to sue for damages under both the heads -- activities of Railways are likely to cause accident if no due care is taken. AIR 1998 SC 640 followed. (1966) 2 All ER 162 (PC) and 1932 AC 562 relied on. [Para 15
(5) Negligence -- negligence in stopping and starting Trains with jerk resulting injury to passenger -- gives rise to claim of compensation. Treatise on Negligence 7th End. by Charlesworth & Percy and AIR 1992 Ker. 230, (1921) All ER 301 and (1956) 1 All ER 578 relied on. [Paras 16 & 19
(6) Railways Act, 1989 -- Ss. 154, 159 and 175 -- Rules framed under -- Rr. 115, 120, 130 and 131 -- non-observance of rules made for safety of passengers n gives rise to action in tort -- non-observance of provisions under the Act -- may held the person responsible to conviction. [Para 20 & 21
(7) Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 -- Part III, Item No. 2 -- award of compensation -- is governed by the provision under -- no interference called for if award is in accordance with the injury sustained. [Para 29
(8) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 -- S. 13 -- claim petition filed within limitation -- transfer of same to civil Court and again to Claims Tribunal -- does not make it barred by time. [Para 30
¼1½ jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 && /kkjk 13¼1d½ rFkk 24 && jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989 && /kkjk 124d ¼1994 esa ;Fkkla‘kksf/kr½ && flfoy U;k;ky; vkfn ls jsy nkok vf/kdj.k esa nkok ekeykas dk varj.k && 1989 vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 124d] 1987 vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 rFkk 24 ds lkFk i<+h tkuk gksxhA nkok vthZ 25-1-1993 dks nkok vf/kdj.k ds le{k Qkby dh xbZ FkhA izrhr gksrk gS fd vkns‘k fnuakd 14-12-1994 }kjk nkok vf/kdj.k us fopkj.k ds fy, nkok vf/kdj.k us fopkj.k ds fy, nkok vthZ flfoy U;k;k/kh‘k ds le{k fopkj.k ds fy, flfoy U;k;ky; dks varfjr dj fn;k x;kA ckn esa] Hkkjr la?k }kjk jsy nkok vf/kdj.k] 1987 dh /kkjk 13 ij vk/kkfjr] flfoy U;k;ky; dh ekeys dk fopkj.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ds ckjs esa vk{ksi fd;k x;kA prqFkZ vfrfjDr ls‘ku U;k;k/kh‘k 18-9-1997 dks bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡ps fd ekeyk dsoy jsy nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk fopkj.kh; gS] vr%] ekeyk jsy igq¡ps fd ekeyk dsoy jsy nkok vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr dj fn;k x;kA jsy nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k ftls izLrqr vihy esa iz‘uxr fd;k x;k gSA ¿ iSjk 2À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 dh /kkjk 13 ds lkFk /kkjk 24 ds iBu ek= ls lqLi"V gS fd ;fn flfoy U;k;ky; ds le{k ,slk ekeyk yafcr gks tks jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989 dh /kkjk 124d ls vkPNkfnr gksrk ;fn mDr mica/k ml le; izo`Ùk gksrk tc nq?kZVuk gqbZ] rc ,slk ekeyk jsy nkok vf/kdj.k dks varfjr gks tk,xkA vU; ‘‘kCnksa esa] fu;r fnu ls rqjar igys fdlh Hkh U;k;ky;] nkok vk;qDr vFkok izkf/kdkjh ds le{k yafcr lHkh vfiz; ?kVukvksa ds ekeys varfjr gks tk,¡xs ;fn og fu;r fnukad ;k /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1d½ dk mica/k izkjaHk gksus ds fnuakd ds i‘pkr~ mn~Hkwr gq, gksa] nkok vf/kdj.k dh vkf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj gksa rFkk mlds }kjk fopkj.kh; gksaA------- nkok vthZ eas fd, x, vfHkdFkuksa rFkk vf/kdj.k }kjk fu"df"kZr rF;ksa dh –f"V ls] jsy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 124d] jsy nkok vf/kdj.k] 1987 dh /kkjk 24 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 13 ds ikjLifjd izHkko rFkk fuoZpu dh ikjLifjd lgk;rk ls jsy nkok vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk fofuf‘pr djus ds lhfer iz;kstukFkZ Li"Vr% vkJ; ysus ;ksX; gS] fcuk ;g fofuf‘pr djus ds vk‘k; ls fd jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989 dh /kkjk 124d Hkwry{kh :i ls izoZruh; gS vFkok ugha] ijarq tgk¡ rd vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk lac) gS] jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 dh /kkjk 13¼1d½ rFkk /kkjk 24 ds mica) i;kZIrr% Li"V gS rFkk gesa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pus esa dksbZ fgpfdpkgV ugha gS fd jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 dh /kkjk 24 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 13¼1d½ dh –f"V ls jsy nkok vf/kdj.k dks gh izLrqr ekeys esa fopkj.k djus rFkk vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk Fkh rFkk flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk ekeyk Bhd&gh varfjr fd;k x;k FkkA gekjh jk; esa] ;g irk yxkus ds fy, fd ;fn nq?kZVuk 1994 es ;Fkkla‘kksf/kr jsy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 124d ds izkjaHk ds i‘pkr~ gqbZ gksrh rc nq?kZVuk vfiz; nq?kZVuk gksrh ;k ugha] jsy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 124d dks jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 rFkk /kkjk 24 ds lkFk i<+k tkuk gksxk D;ksafd muds ?kVuk ds fnuakd ls fujis{k] ,sls lc ekeys jsy nkok vf/kdj.k dks varfjr gks tk,¡xsA ¿ iSjk 10 ,oa 11À ¼2½ jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 && /kkjk 13¼1d½ && vf/kdkfjrk ds vk{ksi ij ekeyk flfoy U;k;ky; ls jsy nkok vf/kdj.k dks varfjr && vf/kdj.k }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr && jsyos }kjk vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh l{kerk ij vk{ksi dh lquokbZ ugha dh tk ldrhA 2000 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 1734 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 12À ¼3½ jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989 && /kkjk 124d rFkk 123¼x½ 1994 && esa ;Fkkla‘kksf/kr½ && ;|fi la‘kks/ku Hkwry{kh ugha rFkk nq?kZVuk 1994 esa /kkjk 123¼x½ var%LFkkfir dh tk dj ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr *vfiz; ?kVuk* ugha && rFkkfi jsyos ds lkekU; fof/k drZO; rFkk vU; drZO;ksa ds Hkax ds vk/kkj ij ekeyk fofuf‘pr fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 1659 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 14À ¼4½ dkuwu && lkekU; fof/k drZO;] dkuwu ds v/khu drZO;ksa ls vfrfjDr gS && nkosnkj nksuksa ‘kh"kksZa ds v/khu uqdlkuh ds fy, okn ykus ds gdnkj gS && lE;d~ lko/kkuh ugha cjrh tk, rc jsyos ds fØ;kdykiksa ls nq?kZVuk dkfjr gksus dh lHkkO;rk gSA , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 640 vuqlfjrA ¼1996½ 2 vky bZ vkj 162 ¼ih lh½ rFkk 1932 , lh 562 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 15À ¼5½ mis{kk && Vªsus >Vds ls jksdus rFkk pykus dh mis{kk ds ifj.kkeLo:i ;k=h dks {kfr && izfrdj dk nkok mn~Hkwr gksrk gSA pkYlZoFkZ rFkk ilhZ —r VªhVht vku usfXytsUl~] lIre laLdj.k] , vkb vkj 1992 dsjy 230] ¼1921½ vky bZ vkj 301 rFkk ¼1956½ 1 vky bZ vkj 578 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 16 ,oa 19À ¼6½ jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989 && /kkjk 154] 159 rFkk 175 && ds v/khu fojfpr fu;e && fu- 115] 120] 130 rFkk 131 && ;kf=;ksa dh fujkinrk ds fy, cuk, x, fu;eksa dk vuuqikyu && vi—R; dh dkjZokbZ mn~Hkwr gksrh gS && vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mica/kksa dk vuuqikyu && O;fDr nks"kflf) ds fy, mÙkjnk;h vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 20 ,oa 21À ¼7½ jsy nq?kZVuk vkSj vfiz; ?kVuk ¼izfrdj½ fu;e] 1990 && Hkkx 3] en Ø- 2 && izfrdj dk vf/kfu.kZ; && blds v/khu mica/kksa }kjk fofu;fer gS && vf/kfu.kZ; {kfr ds vuqlkj gks rc gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA ¿ iSjk 29À ¼8½ jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 && /kkjk 13 && nkok vthZ ifjlhek ds Hkhrj Qkby dh xbZ && mldk varj.k flfoy U;k;ky; dks rFkk fQj nkok vf/kdj.k dsks && le;&oftZr ugha gks tkrhA ¿ iSjk 30À
Mishra, J. -- 1. Union of India has filed the present appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, aggrieved by award dated 243.1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in O.A. No. 424/97.
2. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation to the respondent-claimant for amputation of her left arm above elbow. Mulko Bili had met with an accident on 17.5.1991 when she fell down from a train at Sanchi Railway Station in between Beena and Bhopal, train overran her resulting in the said .injury. The case has a chequered history. The claim petition was filed before the Claims Tribunal on 25.1.1993. It appears that the Claims Tribunal vide order dated 14.12.1994, ordered the claim petition to be transferred to the civil Court for its trial. The case was transferred to the civil Court for trial before the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge. Later on an objection was raised by the Union of India about the jurisdiction of civil Court to try the cases based on section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion on 18.9.1997 that the case is triable by Railway Claims Tribunal only, hence, the case was transmitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has passed an award which has been assailed in the 'present appeal.
3. The claimant alleged that when she was going from Sagar to Indore, she had completed journey from Sagar to Beena and at Beena Station, she boarded another train for going to Bhopal and when the train reached Sanchi Station, the train was started without giving any whistle or signal and due to hue and cry raised and sudden boarding of the train by so many persons she fell down from the train and her left arm above elbow was over run by the train, and was amputated. She was taken to Bhopal for treatment by G.R.P. Police, Sanchi after making entry in Rojnamcha (Daily Diary), at serial No. 3147 on 17.5.1991. The Claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
4. In the reply the Union of India denied the accident itself for want of knowledge and contended that no such accident took place at Sanchi Station on 21.5.1991 as alleged and the claimant is not entitled for the compensation claimed. The deceased was not a valid passenger. She had not purchased ticket for the journey, hence, Railways could not be held liable to pay compensation.
5. Before the Claims Tribunal, affidavits of Smt. Mulko Bai and Mitthulal Ahirwar were filed. They were cross-examined. On behalf of Railway also Rakesh Bhardwaj, Station Supdt. Sanchi (RW 1), Vinod Kumar Mishra, Asstt. Station Master, Vidisha, (RW 2) and Anup Kumar Verma, Pointsman 'A' Grade, Sanchi Rly. Station (RW 3) affidavits were filed who were cross-examined also.
6. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the Railways Shri S.P. Sinha has assailed the award on merits as well as on the basis of jurisdictional competence of the Claims Tribunal to pass the award. His submission is that the case was not triable before the Claims Tribunal hence the award is a nullity. He has further submitted that on the date of the accident which is 17.5.1991, Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was not on book of statute, it was subsequently inserted in the Act with effect from 1994 by the Railway Amendment Act (28 of 1994). It was not the case of untoward incident, covered u/s 124-A. Hence, the Claims Tribunal has erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 124-A to find it an untoward accident. He further submits that it not being untoward accident on date of occurrence. The case was wrongly transferred by the civil Court to the Claims Tribunal and the provision of transfer of cases to the Railway Claims Tribunal contained is section 13 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is not attracted to the case. He further submits that on merits the negligence of the railways has not been established. The deceased was not carrying ticket at the time of accident and as such the Railways could not be sad
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
