JUDGMENT

THAKKAR, J.:— Two mishaps, one, to the train by which a passenger is travelling, and another, a sympathetic one, having nexus with the former, and going arm-in-arm with it, to the passenger himself, must occur in the course of the same transaction in order to attract liability of the Railway Administration under Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, rightly contends counsel for the Railway.

2. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in not upholding this unexceptionable proposition and in awarding compensation to a passenger on the premise that it was not essential to establish that there was an accident to the train by which the passenger was travelling.

3. Counsel for the Railway was fair enough (we very highly appreciate this gesture) to state that it was on account of the erroneous interpretation placed by the High Court which was likely to give rise to untenable claims in future, rather than the relatively small amount awarded to the passenger, that the Railway was obliged to approach this Court by way of the present Special Leave Petition. We declined to interfere with the operative order of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India having regard to the size of the award (both sides would have expended more than the amount at stake in litigation expenses if leave was granted) but observed that the view taken by the High Court in regard to the question of law involved in the matter was erroneous. We now proceed to articulate our reasons in support of the view expressed by us.

4. The question of interpretation of Section 82A of the Act has arisen in the following contextual backdrop.

The respondent was travelling by a train in his capacity as a bona fide passenger. While the bogie in which the respondent was travelling was being shunted at a Railway Station, the respondent accidentally fell down from the train, near the water column at the end of the platform, and his right hand was crushed by that part of the train which was being shunted. As to how exactly the respondent sustained the injury, the versions of the parties differ. The District Judge did not accept the version of the respondent that the bogie in which he was travelling received a sudden jerk and he fell down on that account. The Railway Administration on the other hand contended that the respondent sustained the injury in the manner described in the relevant contemporaneous record (Assistant Station Masters Diary) namely :

"the injury was sustained by the appellant in going to the rear end of the train and possibly boarding one of the bogies which was being detached during the shunting operation and in this process he appears to have been hit by the water column when these bogies (a part of the train) were being moved during the shunting operation."

5. Now Section 82A of the Act in so far as material reads thus :-

"82A. Liability of Railway Administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers.

(1) When in the course of working a railway accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers 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 person who has been injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, be liable to pay compensation to the extent set out in sub-section (2) and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.

(2) This liability of a railway administra