GAURAV KAPOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is filed under Section 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 bonafide passenger at the Shivaji Bridge Railway Station from where the train Paschim Express was sought to be boarded for travel to Ludhiana.

(2.) 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 bonafide 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.

(3.) Legislature has specifically enacted Section 123(c) and Section 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 Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., 2008 9 SCC 527 and Jameela and Ors. Vs. Union of India, 2010 12 SCC 443 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 Sections123(c) and 124A are to give relief to a bonafide passenger on account of an 'untoward incident'. Once a person is found to be a bonafide passenger travelling on a valid train ticket, in my opinion, there should be liberal and purposive interpretation of Sections 123(c) and 124 A of the Railways Act. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the Explanation (ii) of Section 124-A and which states that a bonafide passenger includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travel by a train on any date and the expression 'bonafide' 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 Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Act.