1998 JTR(SC) 217
1999 ACJ 374 ; 1998 AIR(SC) 1659 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 1415 ; 1998 2 AllCJ 897 ; 1998 4 AWC 833 ; 1998 1 BLJR 569 ; 1998 3 BomCR(SC) 625 ; 1998 ILR(Kar) 1869 ; 1998 1 JT 749 ; 1998 1 KLT(SN) 57 ; 1998 2 MLJ 121 ; 1998 3 PLR(SC) 715 ; 1998 1 RCR(Civ) 684 ; 1998 1 Scale 657 ; 1998 3 SCC 67 ; 1998 1 SCR 899 ; 1998 2 SLR 247 ; 1998 KHC 229 ; 1998 2 Supreme 71
1998(2) Supreme 71
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
P.A. Narayanan -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 824 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2215 of 1992)
Decided on 13-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, (A.C.) and Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondents : N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, S. Wasim A. Qadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.142, Art.21, Art.136
RAILWAYS ACT : S.109, S.124(a), S.80, S.123(c)
(A) The applicability of the Railways Act, 1989, particularly Section 123(c), is pivotal, as it introduces the concept of statutory liability for untoward incidents, including violent attacks and robbery, occurring while a passenger is traveling in a train. This new Act, which came into force on 1st July, 1990, modifies, amends, and consolidates the earlier Railways Act, 1890 (Sections 80, 109, 123(c), and 124(a)), and seeks to provide comprehensive coverage for passenger safety. The common law duty of care, reinforced by Article 21 of the Constitution, operates alongside these statutory provisions, mandating that railways exercise a high standard of care to protect passengers. The failure to stop the train after the alarm chain was pulled, leading to a deprivation of life, renders the guarantee under Article 21 illusory without accountability, and justifies invoking these statutory and constitutional safeguards to determine liability.
(B) Core legal principles include the breach of common law duty of care by carriers, including railways, strict liability for negligence in such breaches, the applicability of res ipsa loquitur, the definition of untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the non-retroactive debate surrounding new statutory schemes, with the ultimate reliance on the breach of the duty of reasonable care.
Facts of the case:
The wife of the appellant, a Senior Lecturer, was traveling on a first-class railway pass in the ladies compartment of a Western Railway local train from Bandra to Andheri. During the journey, she was criminally assaulted and robbed of her valuables. She pulled the alarm chain, but the guard and motorman, despite the alarm bell ringing, failed to stop the train. Consequently, she succumbed to her injuries. The appellant sought compensation, which was denied by the railway administration, citing that liability arises only in railway accidents, not in cases of attempted murder. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court, prompting this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found a clear breach of the duty of care by railway staff, as the train was not stopped despite the alarm chain being pulled, leading to the death of the passenger. The Court noted that the Railway Claims Tribunal or Civil Court was not an appropriate forum due to the delay of over 17 years. It acknowledged the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, and the concept of untoward incident, while resting its decision on the common law duty of reasonable care, ultimately holding the railway administration liable for the fatality.
Issues:
Whether the railways can claim immunity in cases of criminal assault during train travel under the Railways Act, 1890? Whether statutory provisions under the Railways Act, 1989, apply retrospectively? Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in railway passenger casualty cases? Whether the delay in filing a claim precludes compensation?
Ratio Decidendi:
The railway administration owes a high standard of common law duty of care to passengers, and a breach of this duty, such as failing to stop a train after an alarm chain is pulled, can result in liability. Compensation is warranted for such negligence, irrespective of the statutory framework under the Railways Act, 1890, and the principles of untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989 reinforce this liability.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 is awarded to the appellant, in addition to Rs. 50,000 previously granted, to be paid on or before 31st March, 1998.
(A) The applicability of the Railways Act, 1989, particularly Section 123(c), is pivotal, as it introduces the concept of statutory liability for untoward incidents, including violent attacks and robbery, occurring while a passenger is traveling in a train. This new Act, which came into force on 1st July, 1990, modifies, amends, and consolidates the earlier Railways Act, 1890 (Sections 80, 109, 123(c), and 124(a)), and seeks to provide comprehensive coverage for passenger safety. The common law duty of care, reinforced by Article 21 of the Constitution, operates alongside these statutory provisions, mandating that railways exercise a high standard of care to protect passengers. The failure to stop the train after the alarm chain was pulled, leading to a deprivation of life, renders the guarantee under Article 21 illusory without accountability, and justifies invoking these statutory and constitutional safeguards to determine liability.
(B) Core legal principles include the breach of common law duty of care by carriers, including railways, strict liability for negligence in such breaches, the applicability of res ipsa loquitur, the definition of untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the non-retroactive debate surrounding new statutory schemes, with the ultimate reliance on the breach of the duty of reasonable care.
Facts of the case:
The wife of the appellant, a Senior Lecturer, was traveling on a first-class railway pass in the ladies compartment of a Western Railway local train from Bandra to Andheri. During the journey, she was criminally assaulted and robbed of her valuables. She pulled the alarm chain, but the guard and motorman, despite the alarm bell ringing, failed to stop the train. Consequently, she succumbed to her injuries. The appellant sought compensation, which was denied by the railway administration, citing that liability arises only in railway accidents, not in cases of attempted murder. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court, prompting this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found a clear breach of the duty of care by railway staff, as the train was not stopped despite the alarm chain being pulled, leading to the death of the passenger. The Court noted that the Railway Claims Tribunal or Civil Court was not an appropriate forum due to the delay of over 17 years. It acknowledged the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, and the concept of untoward incident, while resting its decision on the common law duty of reasonable care, ultimately holding the railway administration liable for the fatality.
Issues:
Whether the railways can claim immunity in cases of criminal assault during train travel under the Railways Act, 1890? Whether statutory provisions under the Railways Act, 1989, apply retrospectively? Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in railway passenger casualty cases? Whether the delay in filing a claim precludes compensation?
Ratio Decidendi:
The railway administration owes a high standard of common law duty of care to passengers, and a breach of this duty, such as failing to stop a train after an alarm chain is pulled, can result in liability. Compensation is warranted for such negligence, irrespective of the statutory framework under the Railways Act, 1890, and the principles of untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989 reinforce this liability.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 is awarded to the appellant, in addition to Rs. 50,000 previously granted, to be paid on or before 31st March, 1998.
Judgment
Dr. Anand, J.-Special leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 1st July, 1991 by which his appeal against summary dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2048 of 1985 was dismissed.
3. It is an unfortunate case. The wife of the appellant Smt. Shantadevi was at the relevant time working as a Senior Lecturer in English. On 3rd January, 1981, the fateful day, she left for her college and travelled, as usual, by Harbour Line local train to Bandra from Kings Circle. From Bandra, she boarded Western Railway local train for Andheri. She was travelling on a first class railway pass in the first class ladies’ compartment. Before she could reach her destination at Andheri, she was criminally assaulted and also robbed of her gold chain, three bangles and a wrist watch between Bandra and Andheri railway station while the train was in motion. She pulled the alarm chain but despite of the ringing of the alarm bell neither the guard nor the motorman stopped the train. She ultimately succumbed to the injuries in the compartment. The guard, in his statement recorded during the criminal trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, admitted that “After I heard the bell, I looked to the eastern and western side of the train and I could not find any untoward incident. Meanwhile the driver had reduced his speed of the train and asked me by giving two beats whether train should stop or not. In reply I gave two beats asking the driver to proceed as there was no necessity to stop the train.” The guard went on to admit that because of clearance for the signal not having been obtained, the train stopped towards the south of gate no. 22 for about a minute and “even at that time the bell in his cabin was ringing.” The train reached platform No. 4 of Andheri railway station at 10.47 a.m. At Andheri railway station, the guard came near the ladies’ first class compartment from where the alarm chain had been pulled. He peeped inside and found that a woman was lying in a pool of blood. On being asked.
“Q. When you heard the warning bell of the alarm, did you give instruction to the driver to stop the train?”
The guard replied :
“Ans. No”.
So far as the motorman is concerned, his evidence is almost on the same lines as that of the guard. The accused who were absconding were subsequently tried but we are not concerned at the moment with the outcome of the trial of that case.
4. The appellant made a representation to the Chairman, Railway Board on 29th March, 1981 requesting for compensation for the death of his wife. His representation was rejected by respondent No. 2 who informed him that the liability of the railways could arise only in case of railway accidents and not where death takes place as a result of an attempted murder in a running train. The appellant’s writ petition and writ appeal thereafter failed in the High Court. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and Dr. Singhvi, whom we had requested to act as amicus curiae in this case.
6. From the evidence of the guard and the motorman, it is quite obvious 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. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact, that if an alarm chain is wrongly pulled, the person responsible for pulling it is liable to be fined.
7. There is a common law duty of taking reasonable care which must be attached to all carries including the railways. In this case, there has been a breach of that duty and the negligence on the part of the railway staff is writ large. 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 we cannot totally rule out. The manner in which the guard and the motorman acted exposes a total casual approach on their part. Because of the failure of those railway officials, a precious life has been lost.
8. Our attention has been drawn by Dr. Singhvi, the learned amicus curiae to the Railways Act, 1989 which came into force on 1st July, 1990 to urge that the new Act which extensively modifies, amends and consolidates the old 1890 Act, unequivocally incorporates the concept of liability of the railway administration for death and/or injury to passengers due to any untoward incident while travelling in the train, Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines an “untoward incident” and inter alia provides the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity as an “untoward incident”. According to the learned amicus curiae, the case of the appellant was required to be considered on the basis of res ipsa locquitor (thing speaks for itself) rather than on narrow technicalities based on the provisions of the Railways Act, 1890.
9. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the railway administration does not dispute that under the new Act, there is statutory liability on the railways but submits that the 1989 Act does not have any retrospective operation. We do not wish to go into that question in this case and leave that issue open. We are resting our case on the breach of common law duty of reasonable.care, which lies upon 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. Here there has been a complete dereliction of duty which resulted in a precious life been taken away, rendering the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution illusory. Had the deceased not pulled the alarm chain with a view to stop the train, the position might have been different. Liability in this case is fault based. Such a liability is not inconsistent 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 and Mr. Goswami has not rightly challenged it either. To relegate the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal or the Civil Court, as suggested by Mr. Goswami, does not appear to us to be proper. More than 17 years have already gone by since the occurrence and, therefore, it appears appropriate to us to give a quietous to this litigation now.
10. In the established facts and circumstances of this particular case, keeping in view the evidence of the guard and the motorman, and with a view to do complete justice between the parties, it appears appropriate to us to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) as compensation to the appellant for the death of his wife. This amount shall be in addition to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) which had been given by the State Government in 1981 as ex gratia in favour of the son of the appellant. The amount of Rs. 2 lakhs shall be paid to the appellant on or before 31st March, 1998.
This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
Before parting with the case, we wish to place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to us by Dr. Singhvi, the learned amicus curiae.
Appeal allowed.
**********