'Restrictive Reading Would Deprive Poor': Jharkhand High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh For Death Of Man Who Fell From Crowded Train Despite Missing Ticket
The Jharkhand HC has held that provisions governing compensation for railway accidents must be interpreted liberally, observing that a restrictive interpretation of the Railways Act would deprive poor and middle-class victims of compensation, particularly when crores of people depend on trains because they cannot afford travelling by air or private vehicles. The Court awarded Rs.8 lakh in compensation to the family of a man who died after falling from a crowded train, despite his railway ticket not being recovered from his body.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order rejecting the compensation claim, holding that the Tribunal had adopted a hyper-technical approach despite sufficient evidence establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident.
The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the Tribunal's judgment dated September 12, 2023, dismissing the family's claim for Rs.8 lakh in compensation following the death of Banmali Gope. According to the appellants, the deceased boarded the Tata-Barbil passenger train at Jhinkpani railway station on September 1, 2017, along with a co-passenger, for his journey to Kendposi.
It was submitted that the compartment was overcrowded, forcing the deceased to stand inside the coach. As the train approached Kendposi railway station, passengers intending to disembark began moving towards the door. Due to the pushing and pressure from other passengers, coupled with a sudden jerk of the train, the deceased allegedly lost his balance and fell from the moving train. Both his legs were severed, and he died at the spot.
The appellants contended that the railway ticket was lost during the accident and that the Tribunal had wrongly rejected their claim on the ground that no ticket was recovered from the deceased's body. They further relied upon the testimony of the deceased's brother, Harish Gope, who stated that he had accompanied the deceased to the railway station and purchased a ticket for him.
Examining the evidence, the High Court noted that an unnatural death case had been registered following the incident. The post-mortem report recorded injuries resulting from a train accident, including that the deceased's body had been severed into three parts.
The Court also considered a communication from the Station Manager recording that the body had been discovered near the railway line at approximately 8:25 PM. The Bench found that these documents, coupled with the testimony of the deceased's brother, sufficiently established that he had been travelling on the train as a bona fide passenger. It further held that the deceased's fall due to jostling constituted an accidental fall from a train and qualified as an untoward incident under the Railways Act.
The Court noted that the incident did not fall within the statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A, such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, commission of a criminal act, intoxication or death due to natural causes. The Railways had also failed to establish that the death resulted from the deceased's own negligence.
The Bench observed that welfare legislation should receive a liberal interpretation rather than a restrictive or strictly literal construction. Significantly, the Court stressed that a narrow interpretation of railway accident compensation provisions would disproportionately affect economically weaker passengers who depend upon railway transportation. It observed:
“In a country where crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air or in a private car by giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression it will amount to deprive a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act.”
The Court held that the evidence on record established both the deceased's status as a passenger and the accidental nature of his death. It observed that the Tribunal had failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence and witness testimony while dismissing the claim.
The Bench further noted that the Railways had not challenged the deceased's brother's testimony regarding the purchase of the ticket through any suggestion during cross-examination. The Court also pointed out that the Railways had failed to produce the Divisional Railway Manager's report concerning the incident, despite the statutory requirement under Rule 13 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003.
Finding that the Tribunal had adopted a hyper-technical approach, the Court observed:
“There are sufficient materials on record to show that the deceased was travelling in train which has been supported by one of the witness and no suggestion has been made by the railways in cross examination of the said witness, thus, it is proved that the deceased was travelling in train.”
The High Court concluded that the appellants had successfully established their entitlement to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, as the death resulted from an untoward incident.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and held the deceased's family entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lakh under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
The compensation was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until the date of the award.
Appearance:
For the Appellants: Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Malityar, Advocate; Mr. Anukul Gaurav, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocate