Strict Liability On Railways To Compensate Kin Of Deceased Who Fell From Train After Mistakenly Travelling Beyond Destination: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the Railway Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants of a deceased passenger who had fallen from the train after mistakenly travelling beyond his destination station.Justice H P Sandesh dismissed an appeal filed by South Western Railways, challenging the order dated December 28, 2010, granting compensation of Rs 4 lakh along with interest...
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the Railway Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants of a deceased passenger who had fallen from the train after mistakenly travelling beyond his destination station.
Justice H P Sandesh dismissed an appeal filed by South Western Railways, challenging the order dated December 28, 2010, granting compensation of Rs 4 lakh along with interest to A Mohan.
He said, "The deceased might have fallen while trying to get down and in that process he could have received injuries, which the fact is in line with the statement of witnesses and also the post mortem report. The fact that the deceased was travelling in the train is not in dispute, but only mistakenly he traveled beyond destiny and also the Apex Court in the Prabhakaran's case also held that principles 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"
He added “Section 124(a) of the Railway's Act, casts a strict liability on the railway even if the deceased died due to his own fault and the railway is liable to pay compensation. Even travel beyond his destiny, the same cannot be ground to discard the claim of the claimants.”
On February 14, 2009 the deceased had purchased one journey ticket from Whitefield to Kuppam and boarded the train Mysore-Tirupati passenger.
Since, the train was heavily crowded and that when the train reached Kuppam railway station due to the incoming and outgoing passengers the deceased could not get down at Kuppram station but tried to reach the doorway and in the meantime due to sudden jerk and jolt of the train travelling between Kuppam and Mallanur railway station, he accidentally slipped and fallen down from the train, sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.
The railways raised a sole contention that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger and the deceased was holding a ticket to travel from Whitefield to Kuppam and his body was lying beyond Kuppam railway station and that itself shows that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger. Hence, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
The bench referred to Apex court judgment in the case of Union of India V/s Prabhakaran Vijayakumar and other (2008) wherein it was held that since the provisions for compensation in the railways act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. The passenger who has traveled beyond his destination in such a situation would be covered within the definition of the passenger with a valid ticket.
The court observed, “With the advance of industrialization, the Laissez Faire Theory was gradually replaced by the theory of the Welfare State, and in legal parlance there was a corresponding shift from positivism to sociological jurisprudence and the Court has to take note of liberal approach and the same was taken note of by the Railway Tribunal.”
It said that in Prabhakaran Vijayakumar's case it was also held that even if a passenger travel's beyond his destiny, the same cannot be ground to discard the claim of the claimants. In view of the same the court found no error in the Tribunal's order in allowing the claim and granting compensation to the deceased's kin.
Accordingly it dismissed the appeal.
Appearance: Advocate H Shanthi Bhushan for Appellant.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
Case Title: UnIon of India AND A Mohan & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2556/2011