P.A. NARYANAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 899 · Decided: 13-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

P.A. NARYANAN 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 13, 1998 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
B 
Tort-Negligence-Res ipsa loquitur-Robbery and murder in running 
train-A lady was criminally assaulted and robbed of her ornaments and 
wrist watch while returning home by a local train-She pulled the alarm 
chain but the train did not stop-She succumbed to the injuries-Evidence C 
of the guard and motorman of the train showing that despite pulling of the 
alarm chain by the deceased, the train was not made to sto~Held, Railways 
liable for complete dereliction of duty of its staff-Liability fault based-
Standard of care high and strict-Appellant, deceased's husband, entitled to 
compensation-Instead of relegating the appellant to go to Railways Claims D 
Tribunal or Civil Court, a Compensation of Rs 2 lakhs awarded to do 
complete justice between the parties-Constitution of India, Article 21, 136 
and 142-Loss of life due to dereliction of duty by government servant-
Compensation-Railways Act, 1890, Sections 80, 109, I23(c) and 124-A. 
A lady while returning home in a first class railway compartment was E 
criminally ~ulted and robbed of her ornaments and wristwatch. She pulled 
the alarm chain but the train was m~t made to stop. The evidence of both the 
guard and motorman showed that in spite of the alarm chain being pulled by 
the deceased, they did not act to stop the train. The lady finally succumbed 
to the injury. The claim compensation made by her husband was rejected by 
Chairman, Railway Board on the ground that liability of the Railways could' F 
arise only in case of railway accident and not where the death takes place 
as a result of attempted murder in a running train. The appellant's writ 
petition and writ appeal filed before the High Court were rejected Hence this 
appeal. 
It was contended by the amicus curiae that the Railways Act, 1989 G 
(amending Railways Act of 1890) incorporates the concept of liability of 
Railways for death and/or injury due to any untoward incident while travelling 
in the train and Section 123( c) of the new Act defines "untoward incident" 
to include making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity. 
He further submitted that the case of the appellant has to be considered on H 
899 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) I S.C.R. 
A the doctrine of res-ipsa loquitur rather than narrow technicalities of the 
Railways Act, 1890. 
It was submitted by the Respondent that the new Act, which came into 
effect from 1-7-1990 has no retrospective operation. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. There is a common law duty of taking reasonable care which 
must be attached to all carriers including the Railways. The standard of care 
is high and strict. It is not a case where the omission on the part of the 
railway officials can be said to be wholly unforeseen or beyond their control 
C Had the deceased not pulled the alarm-chain with a view to stop the train, the 
position might have been different. But the evidence shows that despite the 
pulling of the alarm chain the train was not made to stop. The whole purpose 
of providing alarm chain in the compartments of a railway train was, thus, 
frustrated. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact, that if an alarm 
D chain is wrongly pulled, the person responsible for pulling it is liable to be 
fined. Had the train been stopped and first-aid provided when the alarm chain 
was pulled, the possibility that the deceased may not have met her death, even 
after the assault in the course of robbery, is a possibility which cannot be 
ruled out. The manner in which the guard and the motorman acted exposes 
a total casual approach on their part. There has been a complete dereliction 
E of duty which resulted in a precious life being taken away, rendering the 
guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution illusory. Liability in this case 
is fault-based. Such a liability is not in consistent with the scheme of the 
Railways Act of 1890 either (refer Section 80 with advantage). The proof of 
a fault in this case is strong. (903-D-E) 
F 
2. To relegate the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal 
or the Civil Court, does not appear to be proper. More than 17 years have 
already gone by since the occurrence and, therefore, it appear appropriate 
to give a quietus to this litigation now. In the established facts and 
circumstances of this particular case, keeping in view the evidence of the 
G gua

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.