Principle of Strict Liabillity – Concept of Self Inflicted Injury

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4945 OF 2018

(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.10223 @ D.NO.6059 OF 2018)

UNION OF INDIA …APPELLANT

VERSUS

RINA DEVI ...RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J

1. This appeal has been preferred against award of compensation

of Rs.4 lakhs under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (1989

Act).

2. The respondent filed claim for compensation for death of her

husband Jatan Gope in an ‘untoward incident’ on 20th August,

2002. Her case is that the deceased had purchased a ticket of

second class for Karauta to Khusrupur by train No.532. He fell

down from the train due to rush of passengers and died on the

spot. One Kailash Gope who witnessed the deceased purchasing

the ticket and boarding the train filed an affidavit stating these

facts. He was not cross-examined. Case of the respondent is that

the ticket was not recovered from possession of the deceased as it

may have been lost somewhere.

3. The claim was contested by the appellant. It was stated that

the deceased was not a passenger but was wandering near the

railway track. Cousin of the deceased who lodged FIR stated the

deceased was suffering from mental disorder and was wandering

in that state of mind. However, he was not examined as a witness.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that it was not

a case of ‘untoward incident’ but a case of ‘run over’. The

deceased was not a bona fide passenger

5. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal by relying

upon the evidence of Kailash Gope who filed affidavit to the effect

that the deceased had purchased the ticket and had boarded the

train. The said witness has not been cross-examined. Reliance was

placed on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in

Kaushalaya Devi versus Union of India through General

Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.

to the

1 PLJR 2008 (3), page 711

effect that if a dead body is found in the precincts of the Railway

Station, there is a presumption that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger. Onus to prove that he was a ticketless traveller was on

the Railway. Judgment of this Court in Kamrunissa versus Union

of India

to the effect that the ‘run over’ was different from

‘untoward incident’ was distinguished. Therein, there was no

evidence about the deceased purchasing the ticket as in the

present case.

....

8. Vide order dated 13th March, 2018, we noted the issue of

apparent conflict in Rathi Menon versus Union of India

and

Kalandi Charan Sahoo versus General Manager, South-East

Central Railway, Bilaspur

4 as to the relevant date for applying

the rate of compensation when different rate is applicable at the

time of filing of claim and on the date of the order. A submission

has been filed by the Registrar Principal Bench, Railway Claims

Tribunal seeking clarification on four subjects which repeatedly

arise before the said Tribunal i.e. :

(i) Quantum of compensation: It is stated that there is a

conflict in the decisions in Rathi Menon (supra) and

Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) which needs

clarification. We have already taken note of this issue.

(ii) Definition of passenger: Whether any person found

dead near the track on Railway Precincts can be held to

3 (2001) 3 SCC 714, para 30

4 Civil Appeal No.5608 of 2017 decided on 25.4.2017

be a bona fide passenger for maintainability of a claim

for compensation in absence of recovery of a ticket from

his body. Conflicting decisions of Andhra Pradesh High

Court in Agam Shanthamma versus Union of India

;

Kerala High Court in Union of India versus

Leelamma

; Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in

Union of India versus Surekha

; Ramdhan versus

Union of India

; & Union of India versus Nandabai

;

Calcutta High Court in Asharani Das versus Union of

India

; and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari

versus Union of India

are required to be resolved on

this subject.

(iii) The concept of self inflicted injury: Whether attempt

of getting into or getting down a moving train resulting in

an accident was a case of ‘self inflicted injury’ so as not

to entitle to any compensation or no such concept could

not apply under the scheme of law which casts strict

liability to pay compensation by the Railway under

5 (2004) ACJ 713

6 2009 (1) KLT 914

7 (2011) ACJ 1845

8 (2009) ACJ 2487

9 (2016) ACJ 411

102009 (2) CalLT 467

11 (1993) ACJ 846

Sections 124 and 124A. In this regard views of the High

Courts of Kerala in Joseph PT versus Union of India

Bombay in Pushpa versus Union of India

13 and Delhi

in Shayam Narayan versus Union of India

may

appear to be against the decisions of this Court in Union

of India versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar

and

Jameela versus Union of India

(iv) Award of interest. The Act is silent about the interest.

In Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi versus Union of India

this Court held that the CPC could be invoked and

interest awarded at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of

application till the date of award and 9% p.a. interest

from the date of award till the date of payment. In

Mohamadi versus Union of India

interest at the rate

of 9% was awarded without any difference between the

date of application and date of award or for subsequent

award.

....

13. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We

consider it necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the 1989

Act :

“S.123. Definitions. - In this Chapter, unless the

context otherwise requires,-

(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature

described in section 124;

(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

1[(c) "untoward incident" means--

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train

carrying passengers.]

S.124. Extent of liabililty - When in the course of

working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a

collision between trains of which one is a train carrying

passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a

train or any part of a train carrying passengers, 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 has suffered a loss 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 a

passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for

personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or

deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and

accompanying him in his compartment or on the train,

sustained as a result of such accident.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section

"passenger" includes a railway servant on duty.

S.124A. 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;

(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 purposes of this section,

"passenger" includes--

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for

travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or

a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an

untoward incident.]”

14. In exercise of power under Section 129 of the 1989 Act, the

Central Government framed rules called Railway Accidents and

Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The rules

provided for a schedule prescribing the amount of compensation

payable in respect of death and injuries. The said rules have been

amended w.e.f. 1st January, 2017 by notification dated 22nd

December, 2016 substituting the schedule by higher amount of

compensation

..........

Re: (ii) Application of Principle of Strict Liabillity –

Concept of Self Inflicted Injury

16.1 From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see

any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability.

Sections 124 and Section 124A provide that compensation is

payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or

fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an

accident or in the case of an ‘untoward incident’. Only exceptions

are those provided under proviso to Section 124A. In

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) it was held that Section

124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway

accidents. Where principle of strict liability applies, proof of

negligence is not required. This principle has been reiterated in

Jameela (supra).

16.2 Coming to the proviso to Section 124A to the effect

that no compensation is payable if passenger dies or suffers injury

due to the situations mentioned therein, there is no difficulty as

regards suicide or attempted suicide in which case no

compensation may be payable. Conflict of opinions in High Courts

has arisen on understanding the expression ‘self inflicted injury’ in

the proviso. In some decisions it has been held that injury or death

because of negligence of the victim was at par with self inflicted

injury. We may refer to the decisions of High Courts of Kerala in

Joseph PT (supra), Bombay in Pushpa (supra) and Delhi in

Shayam Narayan (supra) on this point.

16.3. In Joseph PT (supra), the victim received injuries in the

course of entering a train which started moving. Question was

whether his claim that he had suffered injuries in an ‘untoward

incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) could be upheld or

whether he was covered by proviso to Section 124A clause (b).

The High Court held that while in the case of suicide or attempt to

commit suicide, intentional act is essential. Since the concept of

‘self inflicted injury’ is distinct from an attempted suicide, such

intention is not required and even without such intention if a

person acts negligently, injuries suffered in such an accident will

amount to ‘self inflicted injury’. Relevant observations are :

“Therefore, the two limbs of the Proviso should be

construed to have two different objectives to be

achieved. We can understand the meaning of the

term "self-inflicted injury" not only from the

sources provided by the dictionaries, but also from

the context in which it is used in the statute. The

term "self-inflicted injury" used in the statute

can be deduced as one which a person

suffers on account of one's own action, which

is something more than a rash or negligent

act But it shall not be an intentional act of

attempted suicide. While there may be cases

where there is intention to inflict oneself

with injury amounting to self-inflicted injury,

which falls short of an attempt to commit

suicide, there can also be cases where,

irrespective of intention, a person may act

with total recklessness, in that, he may throw

all norms of caution to the wind and regardless to

his age, circumstances, etc. act to his detriment.

Facts of this case show that the appellant

attempted to board a moving train from the off

side unmindful of his age and fully aware of the

positional disadvantageous and dangers of

boarding a train from a level lower than the

footboard of the train. It is common knowledge that

the footboard and handrails at the doors of the

compartment are designed to suit the convenience

of the passengers for boarding from and alighting

to the platform. And at the same time, when a

person is trying to board the train from the nonplatform side, he will be standing on the heap of

rubbles kept beneath the track and that too in a

lower level. Further more, he will have to stretch

himself to catch the handrails and struggle to climb

up through the footboard hanging beneath the

bogie. The probability of danger is increased in

arithmetic progression when the train is moving.

Visualising all these things in mind, it can only be

held that the act of the appellant was the height of

carelessness, imprudence and foolhardiness. It is

indisputable that the purpose of Section 124A of

the Act is to provide a speedy remedy to an injured

passenger or to the dependants of a deceased

passenger involved in an untoward incident.

Section 124A of the Act provides for compensation

to a passenger or his dependants who suffers

injury or death, as the case may be, in an untoward

incident even where the untoward incident is not

the consequence of any wrongful act, neglect or

default on the part of the Railway Administration.

To this extent, it can be said to be a no-fault

liability. Even though the provisions relating to

payment of compensation in the Act can be said to

be a piece of beneficial legislation, it cannot be

stretched too much to reward a person who acts

callously, unwisely or imprudently. There is no

provision of law brought to our notice permitting

the passengers to entrain from the non-platform

side of the railway track. However, the counsel for

the respondent did not show any provision of law

prohibiting the same. The question whether an act

by which a passenger sustains injury while

boarding a train through the off side, is a selfinflicted injury or not depends on the facts of each

case. Merely because a person suffered injury in

the process of getting into the train through the off

side, it may not be sufficient to term it as a selfinflicted injury, unless the facts and circumstances

show that his act was totally imprudent, irrational,

callous and unmindful of the consequences. All the

facts and circumstances established in this case

would show that the act of the appellant was with

full knowledge of the imminent possibility of

dangering his life or limb and therefore, it squarely

comes within the term "self-inflicted injury" defined

in Section 124A Proviso (b) of the Act.”

16.4 In Pushpa (supra) a hawker died in the course of

boarding a train. It was held that he was not entitled to

compensation as it was a case of ‘self inflicted injury’. The

relevant observations are :

“Such an attempt by a hawker has been viewed by

the trial Court as something amounting to criminal

negligence on his part and also an effort to inflict

injuries to himself. The trial Court reasoned that if

the deceased had to sell his goods by boarding a

train, he should have ensured to do so only when it

was quite safe for him to get on to the train or

otherwise he could have avoided catching the train

and waited for another train to come. It also hinted

that there was absolutely no compulsion or hurry

for the deceased in the present case to make an

attempt to somehow or the other board the train

while it was gathering speed.”

16.5 In Shyam Narayan (supra), same view was taken

which is as follows :

“6(ii) I cannot agree with the arguments urged on

behalf of the appellants/applicants in the facts of

the present case because there is a difference

between an untoward incident and an act of

criminal negligence. Whereas negligence will not

disentitle grant of compensation under the Railways

Act, however, once the negligence becomes a

criminal negligence and self-inflicted injury then

compensation cannot be granted. This is specifically

provided in the first proviso to Section 124-A of the

Railways Act which provides that compensation will

not be payable in case the death takes place on

account of suicide or attempted suicide, self

inflicted injury, bona fide passenger's own criminal

act or an act committed by the deceased in the

state of intoxication or insanity.”

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. versus 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

34 2017 (13) SCALE 652

not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of

negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.

Suggested knowledgebase articles:

Principle of Strict Liabillity – Concept of Self Inflicted Injury

Article Details

Related articles