9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 was run over by train No. 6349 Parasuram Express. 5. The Tribunal found that Smt. Abja was a bona fide passenger traveling by the train. 6. Before the Tribunal PW-2, K. Rajan, deposed that while he was at Varkala railway station he found one passenger falling from the Parasuram Express and that the train had stopped. He further stated in his evidence that he went to the north side of the platform and saw the injured lying on the platform. He further stated that the person falling down was the lady who died on the spot. He also stated that the deceased fell down from the compartment of the train when the train was moving. 7. The Tribunal strangely enough held that PW-2 was an interested witness because if he was present on the spot he would have definitely helped the Stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '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 beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003)IILLJ735SC , B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd. (2001)IILLJ1552SC , Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation (2000)ILLJ1SC etc. 12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute 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 give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 contrast with literal construction. The learned author has observed as under: Contrast with literal construction - Although the term 'purposive construction' is not new, its entry into fashion betokens a swing by the appellate courts away from literal construction. Lord Diplock said in 1975: 'If one looks back to the actual decisions of the [House of Lords] on questions of statutory construction over the last 30 years one cannot fail to be struck by the evidence of a trend away from the purely literal towards the purposive construction of statutory provisions'. The matter was summed up by Lord Diplock in this way - ...I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language used would lead to results which would clearly def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 purposes of this section, "passenger" includes - (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. (emphasis supplied) 16. 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 proviso to Section 124A. Hence, in our opinion, the present case is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. 17. Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w 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 the principle announced, the strength of conviction of its expounder, and the clarity of his exposition'. 24. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendants' activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on (vide 'Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn. p. 247). There are many activities which are so hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of another. The principle of strict liability states that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. As Fleming says "permission to conduct such activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes, as an appropriate item of its overheads" (see Fleming on 'Torts' 6th Edn p. 302). 25. Thus in cases where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable 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). 30. Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) gave English Law one of its most creative generalizations which, for a long time, looked destined to have a successful future. Yet, after a welcome start given to it by Victorian Judges the rule was progressively emasculated, until subsequently it almost became obsolete in England. According to Dias and Markesins (see 'Tort Law' 2nd Edn p. 355) one reason for this may well be that as a generalization justifying a shift from fault to strict liability it may have come prematurely. The 19th Century had not yet fully got over laissez faire, and it was only in the 20th Century that the concepts of social justice and social security, as integral parts of the general theory of the Welfare State, were firmly established. 31. As already mentioned above, the rule of strict liability laid down by Blackburn J. in Ryland ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 on Tort, 13th Edn p. 442), and it seems that the rule "has hardly been taken seriously by modern English Courts", vide Att. Gen. v. Geothermal Produce (N.Z.) Ltd. (1987) 2 NZ1R 348. 35. As Winfield remarks, because of the various limitations and exceptions to the rule "we have virtually reached the position where a defendant will not be considered liable when he would not be liable according to the ordinary principles of negligence" (see Winfield on Tort, 13th Edn p. 443). 36. This repudiation of the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) is contrary to the modern judicial philosophy of social justice. The injustice may clearly be illustrated by the case of Pearson v. North Western Gas Board (1968) 2 All ER 669. In that case the plaintiff was seriously injured and her husband was killed by an explosion of gas, which also destroyed their home. Her action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Dalehite v. U.S. (1953) 346 US 15, held that the U.S. was not liable for damages from supersonic booms caused by military planes as no negligence was shown. Schwartz regards this decision as unfortunate (see Schwartz ' Administrative Law', 1984). However, as regards private enterprises the American Courts award huge damages (often running into millions of dollars) for accidents due to hazardous activities or substances. 43. In France, the liability of the State is without fault, and the principle of strict liability applies (see C.J. Hanson "Government Liability in Tort in the English and French Legal Systems") 44. In India, Article 38(1) of the Constitution states "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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
