RAMCHANDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two miscellaneous cases which were heard together and were disposed of by one judgment. The point involved in both the cases is the same. They have, therefore, been heard together with the consent of the parties, and this judgment will govern them both.

(2.) The short facts are these: One Sudhangshu Sekhar Prasad Sinha, a Sub-Inspector of excise posted at Raxaul and employed in the service of the State of Bihar, and his wife Urmila Devi started by the afternoon steamer from Mahendru Ghat on 1-1-1954, at about 2.30 p.m. When the train in which they were travelling was approaching Raxaul railway station there was a head-on collision between that train and a goods train at 5.30 a. m. on 2-1-1954, near the outer signal of Raxaul station. As a result of that accident, these two persons died and they were found lying dead in the railway compartment they left behind six minor children. Ramchandra Prasad Sinha, their grand-father, therefore, filed two claim petitions on their behalf under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, in respect of the death of their parent. The claim petition in respect of the death of Urmila Devi was numbered as miscellaneous case No. 16 of 1954 and that in respect of her husband was numbered as miscellaneous case No. 23 of 1954. It was found by the Claims Commissioner that the above two persons were travelling without tickets. He therefore, held they were trespassers and not passengers travelling in the train, and, as such, the appellant was not entitled to any claim under the above section of the Act. Both the claim petitions were, therefore, dismissed. Hence these two appeals have been filed by the claimant in this Court. Miscellaneous Appeal 319 of 1955 arises out of Miscellaneous Case 23 of 1954 and Miscellaneous Appeal 320 of 1955 arises out of Miscellaneous Case 16 of 1954.

(3.) The finding of the learned Claims Commissioner that Sudhangshu Sekhar Prasad Sinha and his wife were travelling in the train without having any ticket, has not been challenged by the Counsel for the appellant. His contention, however, is that even it they had not purchased any ticket the appellant was entitled to the claims made by him because of the death of the two persons as a result of the accident. The argument put forward is that for the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 82-A of the Act it is not necessary that the deceased must have had proper authority for travelling on the train. Sub-section (1) of Section 82-A of the Act provides that when in the course of working a railway an 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 owned by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. In the present case the train by which these two persons were travelling was admittedly a train carrying passengers. The appellant, therefore, could be entitled to the compensation on account of the death of these two persons if they were passengers within the meaning of that section. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that even though these two persons had not obtained tickets for travelling by that train, they were passengers within the meaning of the above section and the claims made by the appellant should have been allowed. On behalf of the respondents, however, it has been contended that the above two persons having no authority to travel by the train in question were merely trespassers and could not be called passengers within the meaning of that section so as to entitle the appellant to claim any compensation. It has, therefore, to be seen whether these two persons were passengers or not.