UNION OF INDIA versus PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 05-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 673 
;. r 
UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2002) 
MAY 5, 2008 
B 
.... 
r 
[H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Railways Act, 1989 -
SS. 124(A) and 123(c) -
Compensation on account of 'untoward incident' - Claim of -
Bonafide passenger fell on to railway track when trying to get c 
into the moving train and run over by train - Held: Comes 
within expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train 
carrying passengers', hence an 'untoward incident' - Instant 
case is covered bys. 124A - It cannot be said that there was 
no fault on part of Railways or that there was contributory D 
negligence - Thus, order of High Court granting compensation 
...; 
upheld - Interpretation of statutes . 
Interpretation of statutes - Expression 'accidental falling 
of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' -
Two 
constructions - First that a person has actually got inside the E 
train and thereafter falls down from the train, while second that 
a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying 
to do so - Held: Provision for compensation in the Act being a 
beneficial piece of legislation, it should be given .liberal 
interpretation and not a narrow one -
Hence, second 
F 
interpretation which advances the object of the statute and 
y 
serves its purpose to be preferred - Railways Act, 1989. 
Torts - Principles of Strict liability-Applicability of- Held: 
Applies to statutory authorities like railways, public 
corporations or local bodies not working for private profit - It G 
cannot be said that body which acts not for its own profit but for 
the benefit of the community should not be.liable - Strict liability 
"" 
has no element of moral censure. 
Jurisprudence - Law - Law of strict liability de hors 
673 
H 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
~ • 
A statutory provisions in view of MC Mehta's case should be 
developed - With regard to cases on account of 'untoward 
incident' new principles for fixing liability to be developed. 
AB was holding a second class season ticket and a 
B 
railway identity card. She died in a train accident. She fell 
on to the railway track and was run over by train. AB's 
husband, mother and minor son filed claim petition before 
~ ... 
the Railway Claims Tribunal. PW-2 deposed before the 
tribunal that while he was at the railway station he found 
that the deceased fell down from the compartment of the 
c train when the train was moving and died on the spot. 
However, the tribunal held PW-2 to be an interested 
witness and disbelieved his evidence, though DW-1-
Station Master at the railway station corroborated the 
evidence of PW-2. The tribunal held that it was not an 
D 'untoward incident' within the meaning of the expression 
in s. 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an 
accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying 
passengers and rejected the claim. In appeal, the High 
Court held that the deceased sustained injuries in her 
E anxiety to get into the train which was moving, thus, came 
within the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger 
from a train carrying passengers' which is an 'untoward 
incident', as defined ins. 123(c). It allowed the claim and 
granted compensation of Rs. 2 lacs with interest @ 12% 
F from the date of the petition till the date of payment was 
granted. Hence, the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It would not legally make any difference 
G whether the deceased was actu,C:lllY inside the train or 
whether she was only trying to get into the train when 
she fell down. 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 ins. 123(c) 
H of the Railways Act. [Para 1 O] [681-D-E] 
UNION OF INDIA v. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR 
675 
& ORS. 
2.1 If the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute A 
are capable of two constructions, the one which is more 
in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit 
of the person for whom the Act was made should be 
preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes 
should be given a liberal and not literal or strict 8 
=" 
r 
interpretation. [Para 12] [682-B] 
Kuna/ Singh vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524; B. D. 
Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 193; Transport Corporation 
of India vs. ES/ Corporation (2000) 1 SCC 332; Alembic 
Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workme

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