CASE ANALYSIS ON

UNION OF INDIA V. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS

CITATION- (2008 ) 9 SCC 527

CONCRETE FACTS
 Size of the Bench- Division Bench
 Name of the Judges- Justice H.K. Sema and Justice Martkandey Katju
 Name of the judge who delivered the opinion- Justice Markandey Katju
 Decided On- 05.05.2008
 Counsel for the appearing parties-:
1. Advocate for Appellants- P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., S. Wasim A. Qadri and
Anil Katiyar, Adv.
2. Advocate for Respondents- B.V. Deepak, Adv.
 MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE

A. A lady, Smt. Abja, fell down on the railway track while attempting to get into the
Parsuram Express train and was run over by the train. She died on 23.5.1996. The
accident occurred at the Varkala Railway station. Smt. Abja was a bonafide passenger
carrying a second class season ticket and a valid identity card issued by Southern
Railway. As per the forensic report, the cause of the demise was multiple injuries
received because of the accident.
B. A claim petition was filed by her husband, mother, and minor son before the Railway
Claims Tribunal. Tribunal referred to section 123(c) of the Railways Act, which defines
'untoward incident' as 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers'. Interpreting and limiting the scope of this section only to the passengers who
fall accidentally while actually being inside and traveling in the train. Tribunal excluded
the ones, who fall down while boarding the train, Tribunal refused to give compensation
and disallowed the claim appeal.
C. Aggrieved by the decision of Tribunal Court, an appeal was filed by Abja’s family before
Kerala High Court. Kerala HC read Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, which is a
beneficial piece of legislation, in a liberal, wider and purposeful manner to cover the
bonafide passengers who fall down while boarding the train under this section. Kerala
HC, by allowing the appeal, ordered for the compensation of Rs. 2 lacs with interest @
12% from the date of the petition till the date of payment was granted, in the judgment
dated 25.6.2001.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

Issues raised before the court were mixed, the question of law and question of fact. Question
of law requiring the correct interpretation of section 123(c) of Railways Act 1, and the
question of fact requiring to check if the present case falls under the said interpretation. The
issues were:-

(i) Whether section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 applies in the present case?
(ii) Can Railways be made liable under the principle of Strict Liability?

1
Railways Act, 1989
 CONTENTIONS ADVANCED

 CONTENTIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of Appellants raised the following contentions against
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court-:

1. There was no fault on the part of Railways.

2. There was contributory negligence, and railways alone cannot be held liable.
3. The present case does not fall within the definition of an ‘untoward accident’ as
required under section 123(c) and therefore no compensation should be granted under
section 124A of the Railway Act2.

 CONTENTIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of Respondent raised the following contentions
against the contentions put forward by the appellants:-

1. The judgment passed by Kerala High Court is correct and should be upheld by
Supreme Court.
2. Adequate compensation must be provided by Railways to the family of the deceased
as provided under section 124A of the Railways Act.

PROVISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE COURT

 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Article 38(1), dealing with Directive Principles Of State Policy (DPSP), was relied upon by
the court, which talks about the State’s duty for the promotion of the welfare of people. It
states that:-

“The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall
inform all the institutions of the national life.”

 LEGISLATIVE STATUTES
“RAILWAYS ACT, 1989” – Sections 2(29), 123(c), and 124A were relied on by the court.
2
ibid
Section 2(29) defines the ‘passenger’ as a person traveling with a valid ticket or pass.

Section 12(c) defines an ‘untoward incident’ as 'accidental falling of a passenger from a

train carrying passengers'.

Section 124A deals with the compensation on account of the untoward incident, with certain
exceptions.

Compensation on account of untoward incident.—“When in the course of working a

railway an untoward incident occurs, 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 passenger
who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an
action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such
extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or
injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation
shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or
suffers injury due to—

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment
becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.”

Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "passenger" includes -

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by train carrying passengers,
on any date or a valid platform ticket, and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

“Motor Vehicle Act, 1988” - Section 140 and 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 also
incorporates the principle of Strict Liability.
 DOCTRINES
1. Doctrine of Strict Liability:- Blackburn J., in Reyland v. Fletcher 3, described the principle
of strict liability as "The person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and
keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he
does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence
of its escape". The reasoning behind this principle is that an innocent person should not suffer
any harm from a hazardous or dangerous activity without his fault, while the defendant gains
profit from such activity. Strict liability has evolved through the years to include public
bodies also. The principle of strict liability was subject to some exceptions which are: (a) Act
of God, (b) Plaintiff’s own fault, (c) Statutory Authority, (d) Act of Stranger, (e) Common
Benefit, (f) Consent of Plaintiff

The Supreme Court of India modified this principle by removing the exception and
developed the principle of Absolute liability in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others 4.
Any person who indulges in hazardous or dangerous activity will be liable for any damage or
harm caused by such activity, irrespective of fault on their part. It is presumed that such
activity is allowed on the condition of absorbing the cost of any accident arising out of such
activity and the person engaged in such work is assumed to be in the best position to spread
the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products.

2. Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation:- The provision or any terms stated in the

legislation must be interpreted in a manner that fulfills the object and serves the purpose of
that Legislation/Statute. These are to be interpreted in a wide, liberal, and broader perspective
as they are made for the benefit of the general public.

 BOOKS

 
1. Statutory Interpretation by Francis A.R. Bennion (2nd edition)

The Author, in this book, has discussed the purposive construction of statutes and their
likewise interpretation. He talks about two ways of interpreting the purposive
construction of enactment. First, where the literal meaning of an enactment is followed in
accordance with the purpose of the legislation. Second, where the strained meaning is
followed when the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose.

3
(1868) LR 3 HL 330
4
AIR 1987 SC 1086
 EVIDENCE AND REASONING OF THE COURT

 On Contention regarding the credibility of Witness

Railway Claims Tribunal held that Prosecution Witness-2 (PW-2) was an interested witness
and hence his statement cannot be believed. The reasoning given by Tribunal behind this
observation was that if PW-2 was not an interested witness then he would have helped the
station master in removing the dead body of the victim from the railway track and police
must have recorded his statement.5

Rejecting this contention, Supreme Court observed that there was no evidence or reason to
believe that PW-2 was an interested witness or had any motive to give false evidence. On the
basis of the mere fact that the witness did not reached the spot to help in the removal of the
dead body, his statement cannot be discarded. The court also acknowledged the fact that there
is a large crowd on railway platforms in our country and observed that it is not possible for
the police to record the statement of each and every passenger present there. 6 Based on this
reasoning, SC rejected the observation of the Tribunal by saying that merely because police
did not record his statement does not mean that he was not present there or had given false
evidence.

The evidence of Defence Witness-1 (DW-1), Sajjan Singh, station master of the railway
station also corroborates the evidence of PW-2. He admitted that he saw a lady running
towards the train and trying to board it but she fell down. 7 Relying on this statement, Tribunal
contended that this was not an ‘untoward accident’ within the ambit of section 123(c) as it
was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.

Upholding the view of the Kerala High Court, judges were of the opinion that it does not
make any difference whether the deceased was inside the train or was trying to board the train
during the accident. In either case, it amounts to an “accidental falling of a passenger from a
train carrying passengers” and therefore comes under “untoward accident” as defined in
section 123(c) of the Railways Act8.

5
Para 7, Union Of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008 )9 SCC 527
6
ibid
7
Para 8, Union Of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008 )9 SCC 527
8
Id., 2
 On Contention regarding the interpretation of the Statute
Railway Claims Tribunal was of the view that a bonafide passenger who falls down and
suffered injuries while trying to board the train is not entitled to compensation as this
accident does not come under the definition of an untoward accident. Appellants affirmed the
same reasoning before the Apex Court. The court held that the incident come within the
definition of an untoward accident.

The court noted that the provision of compensation in the Railways Act is enacted to provide
relief for the injured persons or their families and hence the act must be interpreted in a
manner beneficial to the passengers. It was observed that adopting a restrictive meaning to
the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' in Section
123(c) of the Railways Act will deprive a large number of passengers of getting relief in such
accidents. In our country, everyone is not privileged to afford a plane or a private car to travel
and a large crux of people rely on railways for their traveling needs. Therefore, providing a
restrictive, textual, and narrow interpretation for the provision will deprive many people
(especially poor and middle class) of claiming compensation and getting relief.

The court acknowledged the fact that there can be two interpretations to section 123(c) of the
act9, one which is applicable when a person actually got inside the train and thereafter falls
from it, and the other which includes the passengers who fall down while boarding the train.
While considering a beneficial piece of legislation, a wider and liberal interpretation is
preferred, and in the present case, the latter interpretation will be considered. The one which
serves the purpose of the act and advances its object is considered for application.

9
Ibid, 2
 CONCRETE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

 JUDGEMENT IN PERSONAM (Concrete Judgment)

The Supreme Court upheld the decision made by Kerala High Court. Analyzing all the facts
under the case, the Apex court held that the accidental death of Smt. Abja comes within the
scope of section 124A of Railways Act, 1989, and her representatives are entitled to claim
compensation from the Railways. The court ordered for the compensation of Rs. 2 lacs with
interest @ 12% from the date of the petition till the date of payment was granted, as held by
the Kerala High Court.

 JUDGEMENT IN REM (Ratio Decidendi)

The court observed three ratio decidendi from this case, which were:-

(i) “As per the principle of strict liability undertakers of hazardous activities have to pay for
damages caused even if they have no fault”
(ii) “Expression "untoward incident" covered the incident where a person while attempting to
board the train, accidentally fell down from the same”
(iii) “Beneficial or welfare legislation should be given a liberal and not strict
interpretation”

It was a Majority Judgment confirmed by both the Judges. The decision of Kerala
High Court was upheld.
 CONCLUSION

The courts have evolved from sticking to the literal interpretation to interpreting the latent
purpose and objective to benefit the beneficiaries. The reasoning behind the court’s
interpretation of provisions to the benefit of people is very satisfactory. The main object of
the legislature behind making laws and rules is the welfare of its people, and the judiciary
carries forward this objective by interpreting such legislation in favor of the public at large. In
this case, both Kerala High Court and Supreme Court have rightly given relief to the family
of the deceased by including her under the ambit of the relevant provision. Applying the
principle of Strict Liability, courts have managed to include public bodies under its umbrella
and held them liable for any accident irrespective of fault. The enterprises, whether public or
private, have the means to settle the loss of such an accident by increasing the price of the
product or by spreading it among the public at large generally. The consequence of any such
non-negligent accident cannot be left on the deceased alone as it will be unjust. Rightly
applying both the principles, the High Court and Apex Court have fulfilled their objective of
doing justice and providing relief to the aggrieved in this case.