2008 (5) TMI 709 - SC - Indian Laws

Passenger died in Train Accident - fault on the part of the Railways or Contributory negligence - accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers Section 123(c) of the Railways Act - Principle of strict liability - Section 124A - Claim for compensation - Claims Tribunal disallowed the claim but the appeal against the said decision was allowed by the Kerala High Court and compensation from the date of the petition till the date of payment was granted. HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers . Hence it is an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. If we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are 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 we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence in our opinion the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words a purposive and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression. The accident in which Smt. Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to 124A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A. Hence in our opinion the present case is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124A of the Railways Act and not its proviso. Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence if a case comes within the purview of Section 124A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) in fact created a new legal principle (the principle of strict liability in the case of hazardous activities) though professing to be based on analogies drawn from existing law. The judgment is noteworthy because it is an outstanding example of a creative generalization. As Wigmore writes this epoch making judgment owes much of its strength to the broad scope of the principle announced the strength of conviction of its expounder and the clarity of his exposition . The Principle of strict liability states that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. As Fleming says permission to conduct such activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes as an appropriate item of its overheads . Thus in cases where the principle of strict liability applies the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff even though the defendant may not have been at any fault. However apart from the principle of strict liability in Section 124A of the Railways Act and other statutes we can and should develop the law of strict liability de hors statutory provisions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in M.C. Mehta s case 1986 (12) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT . In our opinion we have to develop new principles for fixing liability in cases like the present one. Therefore we are of the opinion that the submission of ld Counsel for the appellant there was no fault on the part of the Railways or that there was contributory negligence is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected. Thus there is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the incident qualifies as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
2. Evaluation of the evidence presented by witnesses.
3. Interpretation of beneficial legislation.
4. Application of the principle of strict liability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of whether the incident qualifies as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989:
The primary issue was whether the incident in which Smt. Abja fell and died while trying to board a moving train could be classified as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal initially held that it was not an "untoward incident" as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. However, the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the incident did fall within the definition of "untoward incident." The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not legally matter whether the deceased was inside the train or trying to board it when she fell; in either case, it amounts to an "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers."

2. Evaluation of the evidence presented by witnesses:
The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-2, who witnessed the accident, on the grounds that he did not assist in removing the body or have his statement recorded by the police. The Supreme Court found no good reason to disbelieve PW-2, noting that there was no evidence of a motive to give false testimony. The evidence of DW-1, the Station Master, corroborated PW-2's account, stating that the deceased attempted to board the train and fell. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence supported the finding that the incident was an "untoward incident."

3. Interpretation of beneficial legislation:
The Supreme Court stressed that beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal interpretation to advance their purpose. It referred to several precedents to support this view, including Kunal Singh v. Union of India, B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd., and Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation. The Court held that a restrictive interpretation of "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" would deprive many victims of train accidents of compensation, contrary to the statute's purpose.

4. Application of the principle of strict liability:
The Supreme Court discussed the principle of strict liability, originating from Rylands v. Fletcher, and its application in the context of railway accidents. Section 124A of the Railways Act imposes strict liability on the railway administration for "untoward incidents," irrespective of fault. The Court noted that this principle has been recognized in various social welfare statutes in India, including the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court also referred to the landmark decision in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which extended strict liability to hazardous activities, including those conducted by public bodies like the railways.

The Supreme Court concluded that the accident involving Smt. Abja was not covered by the exceptions in the proviso to Section 124A and that the railway administration was liable to pay compensation. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Kerala High Court to award compensation was upheld.