TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. The accident in which Smt. Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to 124A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Markandey Katju, J. 1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 25.6.2001 passed in MFA No. 1080 of 1998-B. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') by the husband, mother and minor son of one Smt. Abja who died on 23.5.1996 in a train accident at Varkala Railway station. The Claims Tribunal disallowed the claim, but the appeal against the said decision was allowed by the Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment dated 25.6.2001 and compensation of ₹ 2 lacs with interest @ 12% from the date of the petition till the date of payment was granted. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. There is no dispute that Smt. Abja was a bona fide passenger holding a second class season ticket and an identity card issued by the Southern Railway. As per the forensic report the cause of death was due to multiple injuries due to the accident. The deceased fell on to the railway track and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the train which was moving. Hence, the High Court held that the deceased came within the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' which is an 'untoward incident', as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. 10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion 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 in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us, that is, Surender Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court we had occasion to say: Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions. Francis Bennion in his Statutory Interpretation Second Edn., has dealt with the Functional Construction Rule in Part XV of his book. The nature of purposive construction is dealt with in Part XX at p. 659 thus: A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by- (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this Code called a purposive-and-literal construction), or (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive and strained construction). At p. 661 of the same book, the author has considered the topic of Purposive Construction in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 124A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states: 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; (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 injur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructed a reservoir to supply water to the mill. This reservoir was constructed over old coal mines, and the mill owner had no reason to suspect that these old diggings led to an operating colliery. The water in the reservoir ran down the old shafts and flooded the colliery. Blackburn J. held the mill owner to be liable, on the principle that 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 . On appeal this principle of liability without fault was affirmed by the House of Lords (per Cairns, J.) but restricted to non- natural users vide (1868) LR 3 HL 330. 23. Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) in fact created a new legal principle (the principle of strict liability in the case of hazardous activities), though professing to be based on analogies drawn from existing law. The judgment is noteworthy because it is an outstanding example of a creative generalization. As Wigmore writes, this epoch making judgment owes much of its strength to 'the broad scope of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one will be seriously effected (vide Article by Prof. Clarence Morris entitled 'Hazardous Enterprises and Risk Bearing Capacity' published in Yale Law Journal, 1952 p. 1172). 29. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) was subsequently interpreted to cover a variety of things likely to do mischief on escape, irrespective of whether they were dangerous per se e.g. water, electricity, explosions, oil, noxious fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation, a flagpole, etc (see 'Winfield and Jolowicz on 'Tort , 13th Edn p 425) vide National Telephone Co. v. Baker (1893) 2 Ch 186, Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. Ltd. v. Cape Town Tramways Co. Ltd. (1902) AC 381, Hillier v. Air Ministry (1962) CLY 2084, etc. In America the rule was adapted and expressed in the following words one who carried on an ultra hazardous activity is liable to another whose person, land or chattels the actor should recognize as likely to be harmed by the unpreventable miscarriage of the activity for harm resulting thereto from that which makes the activity ultra hazardous, although the utmost care is exercised to prevent the harm (vide Restatement of the Law of Torts, vol 3, p. 41). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pation, and since the plaintiff was within the premises at the time of the accident the injury was not due to escape therefrom. In this way Read v. Lyons (supra) destroyed the very spirit of the decision in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) by restricting its principle to the facts of that particular case, instead of seeing its underlying juristic philosophy. 33. Apart from the above, some other exceptions carved out to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) are (a) consent of the plaintiff; (b) common benefit; (c) Act of stranger; (d) Act of God; (e) Statutory authority; (f) default of plaintiff etc. 34. In Dunne v. North Western Gas Boards (1964) 2 QB 806 Sellers L.J. asserted that the defendant's liability in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HC 330 could simply have been placed on the defendants' failure of duty to take reasonable care , and it seems a logical inference from this that the Court of Appeals considered the rule to have no useful function in modern times. As Winfield remarks, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra), by reason of its many limitations and exceptions, today seldom forms the basis of a successful claim in the Courts (see Winfield and Jolowicz o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this strict liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra). 40. The decision in M.C. Mehta's case (supra) related to a concern working for private profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit. 41. It is true that attempts to apply the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) against public bodies have not on the whole succeeded vide Administrative Law by P.P. Craig, 2nd Edn. p. 446, mainly because of the idea that a body which acts not for its own profit but for the benefit of the community should not be liable. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is because such public bodies benefit the community that it is unfair to leave the result of a non-negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally. 42. In America the U.S. Supreme Court in Lairds v. Nelms (1972) 406 US 797, following its earlier decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aturally not uniform in all common law countries, to recognize as worthy of legal protection, interests which were previously not protected at all or were infrequently protected and it is unlikely that this tendency has ceased or is going to cease in future. 51. There are dicta both ancient and modern that the known categories of tort are not closed, and that novelty of a claim is not an absolute defence. Thus, in Jay Laxmi Salt works (P) Ltd. v. The State of Gujarat [1994]3SCR866 , the Supreme Court observed: Law of torts being a developing law its frontiers are incapable of being strictly barricaded. 52. In Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raym 938, it was observed (vide Pratt C.J.): Torts are infinitely various, not limited or confined. 53. In Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 (619) (HL), it was observed by the House of Lords (per Macmillan, L.J.): The conception of legal responsibility may develop in adaptation to altering social conditions and standards. The criterion of judgment must adjust and adapt itself to the changing circumstances of life. 54. The above view was followed in Rookes v. Barnard (1964) AC 1129 (1169) (HL) and Home Officer v. Dorset Yacht ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
