B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) -These two writ petitions, (Writ Petition No. 7866 of 1983 Union of India v. Smt. Ram Devi, (for short the first petition) and (Writ Petition No. 7867 of 1983, Union of India v. Smt. Rama Bai, (for short the second petition), raise a common question of law and fact, hence it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.
(2.) THESE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 18-3-83 passed by the Claims Commissioner, Central Railway, Agra in Claim Petition No. 80 of 1982 (Smt. Ram Devi v. Union of India), under section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, (for short the Act), and the judgment and order dated 15-4-83 passed by the Claims Commissioner, Central Railway, Agra in Claim Petition No. 64 of 1982 (Smt. Rama Bai v. Union of India), under section 82-A of the Act. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. There was a collision between 21 Dn. Dakshin Express and Itarsi Up Special Goods Train on 27-1-82. One Buddhoo Lai Railway Engine Driver, husband of Smt. Rama Devi, the claimant in Claim Petition No. 80 of 1982, lost his life. The claimant preferred a claim petition with a prayer that she may be awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of death of her husband. Whereas in the second petition one Radhey Lal, Assistant Engine Driver of the ill fated 21 Dn. Dakshin Express died in collision with Itarsi Up Special Goods Train Smt. Rama Bai, the wife of deceased filed a Claim Petition No. 62 of 1962 claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This Claim Petition has been decided by order dated 15-4-83, whereas the first Claim Petition has been allowed by order dated 18-3-83. In both the claim petitions a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each has been award- ed to both the widows. It is against these orders the present petitions have been filed. Sri P. N. Katju, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in the first petition the deceased was a Railway employee employed as Engine Driver, and not a passenger. Similarly in second petition also the deceased was a Railway employee employed as Assistant Engine Driver and not a passenger, whereas according to section 82-A of the Act it is only bona fide passenger on whose death the damages can be claimed and not on the death of an employee of the Railway Administration. He placed reliance on Union of India v. Sardarini Harbans Kaur, AIR 1957 Punjab 164.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents Sri Harkauli, on the other hand, urged that the words 'passenger' used under section 82-A of the Act does not necessarily mean the passenger travelling with a ticket. The word has got a very comprehensive meaning and under section 82-A (1) of the Act the words used are 'as would entitle a person who has been injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof. The word 'person' obviovsly means anybody including a passenger and it has been used very significantly indicating "any person", who has either been injured or suffered a loss, can maintain claim petition for compensation. This obviously means that even employee of the Railway either injured or having suffered loss of life in theft case his heirs can file a claim petition for compensation. It was further urged that section 82-A (Eighty two 'A') of the Act has to be read alongwith section 82-H (Eighty two 'H') of the Act. The latter section enacts that apart from right of a person to claim compensation under section 82-A, any other person can recover compensation payable under the Workmens' Compensation Act or under any other law for the time being in force. But no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once, in respect of the same accident. This obviously connotes that even another person who was entitled to sue under Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law for the time being in force, can also claim compensation under section 82-A read with section 82-H of the Act. But nobody can claim compensation twice. This leads only to one inference that even if a person including an employee of the Railway Administration, other than a passenger, dies, in that event also the compensation can be claimed and paid by the Railway Administration, the only rider being that the compensation cannot be claimed or paid twice. In the instant case the widows of both the deceased claimed compensation for the death of their husbands in the collision, hence their claim petitions were maintainable. It was also urged that the writ of Certiorari is a discretionary remedy and where substantial justice has been done, the same can be refused by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on Smt. Yashoda Devi v. Union of India, 1979 AWC 568. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the point for consideration is as to whether section 82-A read with section 82-H of the Act, claim petition, seeking compensation filed by the heirs of the deceased employee of Railway Administration, who has lost his life in the collision of train including the train in which he was employed as Driver or otherwise, can be allowed or not. Section 82-A has to be read not in isolation but along with other relevant section namely section 82-H. Ex Abundanti Cautela, the statutory provision of Section 82-A of the Act is set out below : "82-A. Liability of railway administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers : (1) 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 passengers and accompany the passenger in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. (2) The liability of a railway administration under this section shall in no case exceed fifty thousand rupees in respect of any one person". The statutory provisions of Section 82-H of the Act are also set out below : "82-H. Saving as to certain rights :-(1). The right of any person to claim compensation under section 82-A shall not effect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) or any other law for the time being in force ; but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more then once in respect of the same accident. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the right of any person to claim compensation payable under any contract or scheme providing for payment of compensation for death or personal injury or for damage to property or any sum payable under any policy of insurance". ;