GAURAV KAPOOR AND ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is filed under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 22.7.2010 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the applicants/claimants by holding that the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani was not a bona fide passenger at the Shivaji Bridge Railway Station from where the train Paschim Express was sought to be boarded for travel to Ludhiana. The facts as found by the Railway Claims Tribunal are that the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani alongwith her minor daughter Baby Priya were to travel from New Delhi to Ludhiana by a train No. 2497, but since they missed the train, they cancelled the old tickets and purchased new general tickets for travel from New Delhi to Ludhiana. The deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani and her daughter were misguided by some people to board a wrong train and which was not going from New Delhi to Ludhiana but on the opposite direction towards Ghaziabad. After boarding the wrong train when the mistake was realized, the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani and her daughter immediately de -boarded the train at Shivaji Bridge Railway Station which is just about 2 -3 kms or so from New Delhi Railway Station. At the Shivaji Bridge Railway Station, the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani with her daughter sought to board the Paschim Express for travel to Ludhiana, and in the process of boarding whereas the minor daughter Priya got on the train but the deceased Ramesh Rani slipped and fell down because the train suddenly moved and thereby the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani died by coming under the train. Railway Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani was not a bona fide passenger because the ticket for travel was from the New Delhi Railway Station to Ludhiana Railway Station whereas the train Paschim Express was being boarded at Shivaji Bridge Railway Station and not from New Delhi Railway Station.

(2.) Legislature has specifically enacted Sec. 123(c) and Sec. 124 -A of the Railways Act, 1989, and imposed strict liability thereby upon the Railways. As per the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v/s. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others : (2008) 9 SCC 527 : 2009 (3) ALT 12.2 (DN SC) : 2008 (6) SCJ 209 and Jameela and others v/s. Union of India : (2010) 12 SCC 443 : 2010 (2) An. W.R. 1117 (SC) the liability of Railways is a strict liability even if there is negligence of a passenger i.e., unless and until the negligence is a criminal negligence or a case of suicide or self inflicted injuries, Railways are held liable on account of an untoward incident which causes death of a passenger. The entire emphasis of Ss. 123(c) and 124A are to give relief to a bona fide passenger on account of an 'untoward incident'. Once a person is found to be a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid train ticket, in my opinion, there should be liberal and purposive interpretation of Ss. 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the Explanation (ii) of Sec. 124 -A and which states that a bona fide passenger includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travel by a train on any date and the expression 'bona fide' passenger includes a person who has purchased a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an 'untoward incident'. In this Explanation once again the stress is on the aspect of a person having a valid ticket as against an unauthorized trespasser on railway premises. Even a person having a platform ticket is entitled to compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act if there is an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of this expression as found in Sec. 123(c) read with Sec. 124 -A of the Act.

(3.) In the present case, the admitted position is that the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani had a valid train ticket which was for travel from New Delhi Railway Station to Ludhiana. Therefore, it is not as if the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani was a totally unauthorized passenger. Further, Shivaji Bridge Railway Station is also within the city of New Delhi Itself and barely about 2/3 kms from New Delhi Railway Station. The issue is that can a person who travels by a mistake just a few kilometers in the opposite direction, automatically ceases to be a bona fide passenger as per the meaning of expression under Sec. 124 -A of the Act. In this regard, I take note of the fact that there are rules of the Railways by which a person who has purchased a journey ticket for a limited distance travel, can extend the travel beyond the destination by paying the necessary charges to the Railways for extra distance, even if the original ticket is purchased for a lesser distance. I would like to apply the intendment of these rules of the Railways in a case such as the present where the travel in the opposite direction is proved to be a bonafidely mistaken travel and that too of just about 2/3 kilometers in opposite direction and within the same city. In my opinion, in a case such as the present, in view of the intendment of the legislature in enacting Ss. 123(c) and 124 -A, a person will not cease to be a bona fide passenger unless travel in the opposite direction is deliberate and for quite a few stations of unnecessary long travel from the original point of commencement of the journey which would indicate the travel not to be as a bona fide passenger. Accordingly, in my opinion, once the deceased had a valid journey ticket, albeit for travel from New Delhi to Ludhiana, in my opinion, the deceased Smt. Ramesh Rani is a bona fide passenger within the Explanation (ii) to Sec. 124 -A and it is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger even at the Shivaji Bridge Railway Station which is in the New Delhi city itself but a few kilometers from the New Delhi Railway Station. Therefore, I set aside the findings of the Tribunal and held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.