SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI,J - (1.) Heard. Mr. Awadhesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel for the respondent-Railway. The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment dated 16.08.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, whereby the claim of the appellant has been negated by the tribunal on the grounds that it was a case of self- inflicted injury under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 124-A of Railways Act. The appellant moved before the tribunal for compensation for injury. It is said that on 21.08.2015, the appellant after purchasing a 2nd class journey ticket from Barlanga to Muri boarded local train no.58024 for going to Muri. The train was over crowded. It is stated that when the train was entering Muri Railway Station on platform no.3 the appellant while trying to get down from the passenger train accidently she fell down on the railway track and sustained serious injuries and her both legs were badly injured. The first aid was provided by Sr. DMO (Muri) and shifted to RIMS, Ranchi for better treatment. In this connection Sanha was lodged, i.e., Sanha No.08/2015 dated 21.08.2015 before the Government Railway Police, Muri.
(2.) On the notice, the respondent-Railway appeared before the tribunal and contended that the appellant had to get down at Tulin station but there was no stoppage of the train, she was trying to get down from running train at Muri and she sustained injuries and therefore, it is the case of self- inflicted injury. The tribunal framed five issues. So far as issue no.1 is concerned tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant was a bona-fide passenger of train no. 58024 at the time of incident. Tribunal held that since the appellant tried to alight from the train while the train was still moving and that is why it was self-inflicted injury under Clause (b) of proviso to Section 124- A Railways Act. On these premises, the tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal while holding that the appellant was a bona-fide passenger of the train no.58024 and rejected the claim only on the ground that she got injured while she was trying to alight from the moving train is not justified. Particularly, looking to the facts that the train was over- crowded and the appellant was pushed by someone from the train. Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Railway, submits that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by tribunal as it has been passed after taking into account the DRM's enquiry report as Ext. R-2. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the railways, that the injured was alighting from the train when the train was still moving is called by railways itself is a negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon for Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal Act mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. A Criminal Act under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent. Alighting from the train when someone has pushed inside the compartment may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railways fails even assuming everything in its favour.
(3.) It is apparent that the accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in Clause (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A. This is very much clear that the present case is covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Act. It comes out that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accident. If a case falls in main body of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. Mr. Awadhesh Pandey learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others, reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C (S.C), particilarly paragraphs 10 and 11 which reads as under; "10. 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. 11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers, the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 524 (Para 9), B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 S.C.C 193 (Para 12), Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 S.C.C. 332 etc." He further relied in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi reported in 2018 (2) JBCJ, 478, particularly in paragraph 16.6 which reads as under; "16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of 'self inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault theory' under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident, entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor." Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that credence is very much there on the factum of the injury on account of fall from the train, because the place of occurrence is neither near the residence nor the work place of the injured for the accident to be of any form of criminal negligence/self-inflicted injury of wrongly standing on the railway tracks or crossing the railway tracks. ;