Holding

Compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 is payable as of the date of the accident with reasonable interest, and if that sum is lower than the amount prescribed at the date of the tribunal’s award, the higher amount must be given; death or injury while boarding or de‑boarding a train constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ attracting strict liability, and the claimant bears the initial burden of proving passenger status, which can be discharged by an affidavit, with interest payable from the date of the accident.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a claim for compensation under Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 filed by Rina Devi for the death of her husband who fell from a train while boarding. The Court clarified that compensation is payable as of the date of the accident with reasonable interest, and if that amount is lower than the amount prescribed at the time of the tribunal’s award, the higher amount must be given. It held that death or injury while boarding or de‑boarding a train is an ‘untoward incident’ attracting strict liability and does not fall within the proviso of self‑inflicted injury. The Court also ruled that the initial burden of proving the claimant was a bona‑fide passenger lies on the claimant, which can be discharged by an affidavit, and that interest may be awarded from the date of the accident. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the existing compensation order unchanged.

Issues considered

Whether the quantum of compensation should be based on the rate applicable on the date of the accident or on the date of the tribunal’s award
Whether strict liability under Sections 124/124A applies and how the proviso on self‑inflicted injury is to be interpreted
Whether the presence of a body on railway premises is sufficient to deem the deceased a bona‑fide passenger and who bears the burden of proof
At what rate and from what date interest should be awarded in railway accident compensation claims

Legislation cited

Railways Act, 1989s. 123, s. 124, s. 124A, s. 129, s. 137, s. 55

Subjects

Railway accident compensationStrict liabilityUntoward incidentSelf‑inflicted injuryInterest on compensationPassenger definitionBurden of proof

Judgment

[2018] 4 S.C.R. 417 417

UNION OF INDIA A
v.
RINA DEVI
(Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2018)
MAY 09, 2018 B
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Railways Act, 1989:
Railway accident claim – Compensation – Quantum of – As
per the rate of compensation as on the date of application/incident C
or on the date of order awarding compensation – Held:
Compensation would be payable as applicable on the date of the
accident with interest as may be considered reasonable as in accident
claim cases – If compensation provided on the date of award of the
tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, higher of
D
the two amounts has to be given.
s. 124A – Compensation on account of untoward incident –
Death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train –
Compensation to victim – Entitlement of – Held: Death or injury in
the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward
incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation – It would not fall E
under the proviso to s. 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the
victim as a contributing factor – Concept of ‘self inflicted injury’
requires intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of
any particular degree.
ss. 55 and 137 – Person found dead near the railway track – F
Whether a bonafide passenger for maintainability of claim for
compensation – Held: Mere presence of a body on the Railway
premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased
was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could
be maintained – However, mere absence of ticket with such injured G
or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide
passenger – Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be
discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden
will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the
facts shown or the attending circumstances.
H
417
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A Railway accident claim – Award of interest – Held: Interest
can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of
the Railways arises upto the date of payment, without any difference
in the stages.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
B HELD : Quantum of Compensation:
1.1 The liability will accrue on the date of the accident and
the amount applicable as on that date will be the amount
recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of
accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just
C and fair from time to time. Rate of interest applicable in motor
accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. [Para
15.3][431-B-C]
1.2 Compensation will be payable as applicable on the date
of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable
D from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases.
If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as
on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be
entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect
the awards which have already become final and where limitation
E for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by
itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Compensation as
applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with
reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial
legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of
the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the
F higher of the two amounts has to be given. [Para 15.4][431-E-F,
G]
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1
SCC 289 – held applicable.
Rathi Menon v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714 :
G
[2001] 2 SCR 365 ; P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India
(1998) 9 SCC 134 ; Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh
(1998) 3 SCC 67 ; Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union
of India (2010) TAC 420 SC ; Mohamadi v. Union of
India (2011) ACJ 2356 ; Kalandi Charan Sahoo v.
H General Manager, South-East Central Railway, Bilaspur
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 419

Civil Appeal No.5608 of 2017 decided on 25.4.2017 ; A
Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC
231 ; Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT
Central Calcutta [1966] 2 SCR 688 – referred to.
Application of Principle of Strict Liabillity - Concept of Self
Inflicted Injury: B
2.1 Section 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 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 C
proviso to section 124A. 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. [Para 16.1, 16.2][432-B, C]
D
2.2 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’. Death or injury in the
course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward E
incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall
under proviso to s. 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the
victim as a contributing factor. [Para 16.6][435-B-D]
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9
SCC 527 ; Jameela v. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC F
443 ; Joseph PT v. Union of India AIR 2014 Kerala
(12) ; Pushpa v. Union of India (2017) III ACC 799
(Bom) ; Shayam Narayan v. Union of India (2018) ACJ
702 – referred to.
Burden of Proof When Body Found on Railway Premises – G
Definition of Passenger:
3. Mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will
not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona
fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be
maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide
passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be
discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden
will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on
the facts shown or the attending circumstances. [Para 17.4][438-
B-D]
B
Raj Kumari v. Union of India (1993) ACJ 846 ;
Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India (2015) ACJ 171 ;
Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India 2013
ACJ 1061 ; Kamrunissa v. Union of India AIR 2017
SC 1436 : 2017 SCC Online SC 304 – referred to.
C Rate of Interest:
4. Though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi case held
that rate of interest has to be at the rate of 6% from the date of
application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9%
rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in
D Mohamadi case, rate of interest has to be reasonable rate at par
with accident claim cases. In absence of any specific statutory
provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself
when the liability of the Railways arises upto the date of payment,
without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard
is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles
E Act, 1988. [Para 18][438-E-F]
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India (2010) TAC
420 SC ; Mohamadi v Union of India (2011) ACJ
2356 ; Union of India v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah
(2004) ACJ 529 ; Kaushalaya Devi v. Union of India
F through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur, U.P. PLJR 2008 (3) 711 ; Agam
Shanthamma v Union of India (2004) ACJ 713 ; Union
of India v. Leelamma 2009 (1) KLT 914 ; Union of
India v. Surekha (2011) ACJ 1845 ; Ramdhan v. Union
of India (2009) ACJ 2487; Union of India v. Nandabai
G
(2016) ACJ 411; Asharani Das v Union of India 2009
(2) Cal LT 467 ; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala
K. (1999) 8 SCC 254 ; United India Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Alavi (1998) 3 LLN 285 ; Rahamath Ulla and
Ors v. Union of India Claim Application No. OA(II)U/
H 168/2013 – referred to.
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 421

Case Law Reference A
PLJR 2008 (3) 711 referred to Para 5
AIR 2017 SC 1436 referred to Para 5
[2001] 2 SCR 365 referred to Para 8
(2004) ACJ 713 referred to Para 8 B
2009 (1) KLT 914 referred to Para 8
(2011) ACJ 1845 referred to Para 8
(2009) ACJ 2487 referred to Para 8
(2016) ACJ 411 referred to Para 8 C
2009 (2) Cal LT 467 referred to Para 8
(1993) ACJ 846 referred to Para 8
AIR 2014 Kerala 12 referred to Para 8
(2017) III ACC 799 (Bom) referred to Para 8
D
(2018) ACJ 702 referred to Para 8
(2008) 9 SCC 527 referred to Para 8
(2010) 12 SCC 443 referred to Para 8
(2010) TAC 420 SC referred to Para 8
E
(2011) ACJ 2356 referred to Para 8
(1999) 8 SCC 254 referred to Para 9
(1998) 3 LLN 285 referred to Para 9
(2015) ACJ 171 referred to Para 10
F
2013 ACJ 1061 referred to Para 10
(2004) ACJ 529 referred to Para 10
(1974) 2 SCC 231 referred to Para 11
[1966] 2 SCR 688 referred to Para 11
G
(1998) 9 SCC 134 referred to Para 15.1
(1998) 3 SCC 67 referred to Para 15.1
(1976) 1 SCC 289 held applicable Para 15.3
2017 (13) SCALE 652 referred to Para 16.6
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4945
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 198 of 2013.
Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv(AC), Bharat
B
Singh, Nichi Kats Joshi, Raj Bahadur, Ms. Nachiketa Joshi, Mrs. Anil
Katiyar, Advs for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been
C 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
D 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.
E
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.
F
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
G 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,
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 423
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

Gorakhpur, U.P.1 to the effect that if a dead body is found in the A
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 India2 to the effect that the ‘run over’ was different
from ‘untoward incident’ was distinguished. Therein, there was no
B
evidence about the deceased purchasing the ticket as in the present
case.
6. This appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the
claim of the respondent was not admissible in absence of an ‘untoward
incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) of the 1989 Act as rightly held
C
by the Tribunal. Mere presence of body in the precincts of the Railway
was not enough to presume that he was a bona fide purchaser particularly
when no ticket was found from the deceased.
7. Learned ASG made it clear that the appellant was interested
only in laying down of law on the subject even if the impugned judgment
was not disturbed. Accordingly, we requested Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned D
senior counsel to assist the court as Amicus, instead of issuing notice to
the respondent. We do not propose to disturb the impugned judgment
irrespective of its correctness and we propose to consider the legal issue
sought to be raised and the issues that have been brought to our notice
by the Railway Tribunal as shown later. E
8. Vide order dated 13th March, 2018, we noted the issue of
apparent conflict in Rathi Menon versus Union of India3 and Kalandi
Charan Sahoo versus General Manager, South-East Central
Railway, Bilaspur4 as to the relevant date for applying the rate of
compensation when different rate is applicable at the time of filing of F
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 G
Sahoo (supra) which needs clarification. We have already taken
note of this issue.
1
PLJR 2008 (3), page 711
2
AIR 2017 SC 1436 = 2017 SCC Online SC 304
3
(2001) 3 SCC 714, para 30
4
Civil Appeal No.5608 of 2017 decided on 25.4.2017 H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A (ii) Definition of passenger: Whether any person found dead
near the track on Railway Precincts can be held to 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 5; Kerala High Court in Union of India versus
B
Leelamma6; Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Union of
India versus Surekha7; Ramdhan versus Union of India8; &
Union of India versus Nandabai 9; Calcutta High Court in
Asharani Das versus Union of India10; and Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Raj Kumari versus Union of India11 are required
C 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
D of law which casts strict liability to pay compensation by the
Railway under Sections 124 and 124A. In this regard views of the
High Courts of Kerala in Joseph PT versus Union of India12,
Bombay in Pushpa versus Union of India13 and Delhi in Shayam
Narayan versus Union of India14 may appear to be against the
decisions of this Court in Union of India versus Prabhakaran
E Vijaya Kumar15 and Jameela versus Union of India16.
(iv) Award of interest. The Act is silent about the interest. In
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi versus Union of India17, 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
F and 9% p.a. interest from the date of award till the date of payment.
5
(2004) ACJ 713
6
2009 (1) KLT 914
7
(2011) ACJ 1845
8
(2009) ACJ 2487
9
(2016) ACJ 411
G 10
2009 (2) CalLT 467
11
(1993) ACJ 846
12
AIR 2014 Kerala (12)
13
(2017) III ACC 799 (Bom)
14
(2018) ACJ 702
15
(2008) 9 SCC 527
16
(2010) 12 SCC 443
H 17
(2010) TAC 420 SC
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 425
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

In Mohamadi versus Union of India18 interest at the rate of 9% A
was awarded without any difference between the date of
application and date of award or for subsequent award.
9. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant
to the effect that judgment in Rathi Menon (supra) did not lay down
correct law to the effect that rate of compensation should be as applicable B
on the date of order. It is submitted that the said judgment did not consider
the decision of 4-Judge Bench decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo
versus Srinivas Sabata19 to the effect that liability to pay compensation
arises as soon as injury is caused. This was reiterated in Kerala State
Electricity Board versus Valsala K.20. Kerala High Court took the
same view in United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Alavi 21. C

10. In its written submissions, the appellant has dealt with the
issues of quantum of compensation, definition of passenger and strict
liability. It has been submitted that the view taken in Kalandi Charan
Sahoo (supra) was a correct view. Reference has also been made to
the view taken by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in its D
judgment dated 19th February, 2018 in Rahamath Ulla and Ors versus
Union of India22. As regards the definition of passenger and presumption
to be drawn from the dead body found on the railway premises without
any ticket, it is submitted that if no ticket is found from the body of the
person, presumption of being a bona fide passenger could not be drawn. E
Contra view of the Patna High Court in Kaushalya Devi (supra) was
erroneous and view of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh versus
Union of India23 and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga
Lakshmi Parvathi versus Union of India24 was correct law. With
regard to strict liability, it is submitted that a distinction has to be drawn
between an ‘untoward incident’ and a ‘run over’. It is submitted that in F
view of Kamrunissa (supra) claimants should be put to strict proof of
liabililty. There are 38000 cases pending in Tribunals. Railway
administration grants compensation in all genuine cases. If in spite of
non recovery of ticket, the claimant is exempted from the burden of
18
(2011) ACJ 2356
G
19
(1976) 1 SCC 289
20
(1999) 8 SCC 254
21
(1998) 3 LLN 285
22
Claim Application No.OA(II)U/168/2013
23
(2015) ACJ 171
24
2013 ACJ 1061 H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A proof and the Railway is required to meet such claim, the liability of the
Railway will increase disproportionately. At present, Railway was paying
approximately Rs.350 crores as compensation. There are 68,000
kilometers of railway tracks which are porous/unmanned resulting in
untoward incidents for which liability ought not to be fastened on the
Railways without valid proof of its liability. Andhra Pradesh High Court
B
in Union of India versus Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah25 rightly held
that norms of evidence cannot be completely ignored.
11. Shri Rohtagi, learned Amicus submitted that the view taken in
Rathi Menon (supra) ought to be preferred and rate of compensation
as on the date of the order should be applied. He submitted that in
C common law the amount becomes due on the date of assessment as laid
down in Union of India versus Raman Iron Foundry26 and Kesoram
Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. versus CWT Central Calcutta27.
Moreover, the present being case of a beneficial legislation, if two
interpretations are possible interpretation beneficial to the claimant has
D to be preferred, consistent with the law laid down in Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar (supra). He submitted that Workmen’s Compensation Act (now
named as Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923) was amended in the
year 1958 and in clause 5 of notes on clauses in the Bill, it was stated:
“Clause 5. – This provision is being made in order to ensure
E that the workman is able to get whatever amount the employer
is prepared to pay immediately pending a decision on the
amount of compensation actually due.
This clause also provides for payment of interest if the
compensation is not paid within one month from the due date
F and for a penalty if the Commissioner does not consider the
delay to be justified.”
12. This shows that intention of law is that compensation due is
only after a decision even though amount may be required to be
immediately paid. In case compensation is not immediately paid, Section
G 4A of the 1923 Act provides for interest and penalty. Thus, the rate
applicable should be as on the date of order.

25
(2004) ACJ 529
26
(1974) 2 SCC 231, para 11
27
(1966) 2 SCR 688, para 33
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 427
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

13. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We A
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

(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
1[(c) “untoward incident” means—
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
C
(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
D
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 E
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
F
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.
G
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
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 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,
B
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—
C (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;
D (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treat-
ment 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
E
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling
by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid plat-
form 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
F 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. 1 st
January, 2017 by notification dated 22nd December, 2016 substituting the
schedule by higher amount of compensation.
G 15. We now proceed to deal with the following issues seriatim:
(i) Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the
prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/
incident or on the date of order awarding compensation;

H
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 429
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

(ii) Whether principle of strict liability applies; A
(iii) Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough
to maintain a claim.
(iv) Rate of interest.
Re: (i) Quantum of Compensation B
15.1 In Rathi Menon (supra), this Court considered the question
whether the compensation to be applied would be as per rules applicable
on the date of the order or as per the rules in force at the time of accident
or the untoward incident. Reversing the view taken by the Kerala High
Court that the liability to pay compensation arises as soon as accident C
happens and not when the quantum is determined, this Court held that
liability is to pay compensation ‘as may be prescribed’ which means as
on the date of the order of the Tribunal. This Court observed that if
interpretation placed by the Kerala High Court was to be accepted and
the claimant was to get compensation in terms of market value which
prevailed on the date of the accident, the money value of the compensation D
will be reduced value on account of lapse of time. The revision of rate
by the Central Government may itself show that the money value has
come down. The Tribunal must apply the rate applicable as per the
rules at the time of making of the order for payment of compensation28.
This Court distinguished judgments of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain E
Singh Deo (supra), P.A. Narayanan versus Union of India29 and
Maghar Singh versus Jashwant Singh30. It was observed that Pratap
Narain Singh Deo (supra) and Maghar Singh (supra) were judgments
under the Workmen Compensation Act where the scheme was different
as in the said Act there was a provision for interest and penalty if deposit
was not made. Judgment in P.A. Narayanan (supra) was relied upon to F
support the view that therein compensation was awarded even though
accident was of a date much earlier to the rules providing for
compensation.
15.2. Learned ASG for the appellant submitted that view in Rathi
Menon (supra) stands watered down by subsequent decisions especially G
in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra), Mohamadi (supra) and Kalandi
Charan Sahoo (supra). Rathi Menon (supra) was premised on the
28
Paras 29 and 30
29
(1998) 3 SCC 67
30
(1998) 9 SCC 134 H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A basis that there was no law for interest and there will be injustice if
compensation was paid at money value which had got reduced by the
time the compensation was paid. Factually interest was awarded in
Rathi Menon (Supra). It was on that basis that judgments in Workmen
Compensation cases were held to be distinguishable though the said
judgments are of larger Benches31. Subsequently in Thazhathe Purayil
B
Sarabi (supra) it has been held by this Court, after referring to Rathi
Menon (supra), that right to claim compensation accrued on the date of
the incident though compensation is computed on the date of the award
of the Tribunal. To compensate for loss of money value on account of
lapse of time and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due,
C interest was required to be paid32. Accordingly, this Court directed
payment of interest on the awarded sum from the date of application till
the date of recovery. This view was followed in Mohamadi (supra). In
Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra), without any specific discussion on the
legal issue involved, direction was issued for payment of compensation
which was applicable at the material time and the same was assumed to
D
be of Rs.4 lakhs. In that case, the accident took place in the year 2005
and the award of the Tribunal was in 2009 i.e. prior to 1 st January, 2017.
15.3. Learned amicus has referred to judgments of this Court in
Raman Iron Foundry (supra) and Kesoram Industries (supra) to
submit that quantum of compensation applicable is to be as on the award
E of the Tribunal as the amount due is only on that day and not earlier. In
Kesoram Industries (supra), the question was when for purposes of
calculating ‘net wealth’ under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 provision for
payment of tax could be treated as ‘debt owed’ within the meaning of
Section 2(m) of the said Act. This Court held that ‘debt’ was obligation
F to pay. The sum payable on a contingency, however, does not become
‘debt’ until the said contingency happens. The liability to pay tax arises
on such tax being quantified. But when the rate of tax is ascertainable,
the amount can be treated as debt for the year for which the tax is due
for purposes of valuation during the accounting year in question. There
is no conflict in the ratio of this judgment with the principle propounded
G in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra) that in the present context right to
compensation arises on the date of the accident. In Raman Iron
Foundry (supra), the question was whether a claim for unliquidated
damages does not give rise to ‘a debt’ till the liability is determined. It
31
Para 33 of the judgment
H 32
Para 26
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 431
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

was held that no debt arises from a claim for unliquidated damages until A
the liability is adjudicated. Even from this judgment it is not possible to
hold that the liability for compensation, in the present context, arises only
on determination thereof and not on the date of accident. Since it has
been held that interest is required to be paid, the premise on which Rathi
Menon (supra) is based has changed. We are of the view that law in
B
the present context should be taken to be that the liability will accrue on
the date of the accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be
the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date
of accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just and
fair from time to time. In this context, rate of interest applicable in
motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Once C
concept of interest has been introduced, principles of Workmen
Compensation Act can certainly be applied and judgment of 4-Judge
Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) will fully apply. Wherever
it is found that the revised amount of applicable compensation as on the
date of award of the Tribunal is less than the prescribed amount of
D
compensation as on the date of accident with interest, higher of the two
amounts ought to be awarded on the principle of beneficial legislation.
Present legislation is certainly a piece of beneficent legislation.33
15.4 Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable
as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be
considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in E
accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount
prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will
be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the
awards which have already become final and where limitation for
challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a F
ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon (supra)
and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The
4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds
the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation.
Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given
with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial G
legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the
Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the
two amounts has to be given.
33
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) Para 12
H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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.
D 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
E 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
F 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 :
G
“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”
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 433
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

used in the statute can be deduced as one which a person A
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
B
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 C
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.
D
And at the same time, when a person is trying to board the train
from the non-platform 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 E
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
F
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, G
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
H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 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 self-inflicted injury or not depends on the
facts of each case. Merely because a person suffered injury in
B
the process of getting into the train through the off side, it may not
be sufficient to term it as a self-inflicted 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 435
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

in the first proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act which A
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 B
‘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 Kumar34 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim C
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 not
fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence D
of the victim as a contributing factor.
Re: (iii) Burden of Proof When Body Found on Railway
Premises – Definition of Passenger :
17.1 Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As
noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for death E
or injury of a ‘passenger’. In Raj Kumari (supra) referring to the
scheme of Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since travelling
without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the railway
administration to prove that passenger was not a bonafide passenger.
The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was F
issued or not. 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and
137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured
found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide
passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. However, Delhi
High Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) held that initial onus to prove
death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. G
However, such onus can shift on Railways if an affidavit of relevant
facts is filed by the claimant. A negative onus cannot be placed on the
Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide
34
2017 (13) SCALE 652
H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant
facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi
High Court observed as follows :
“3(ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants/claimants is totally misconceived. The initial
B onus in my opinion always lies with the appellants/claimants
to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a
bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and
depending on the facts of a particular case that initial onus
can be a light onus which can shift on the Railways, however,
it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which has
C to be discharged is always on the railways and not on the
claimants. I cannot agree to this proposition of law that the
Railways have the onus to prove that a deceased was not a
bonafide passenger because no such negative onus is placed
upon the Railways either under the Railways Act or the
D Railway Claims Tribunal Act & Rules or as per any judgment
of the Supreme Court. No doubt, in the facts of the particular
case, onus can be easily discharged such as in a case where
deceased may have died at a place where he could not have
otherwise been unless he was travelling in the train and in
such circumstances depending on the facts of a particular
E case it may not be necessary to prove the factum of the
deceased having a ticket because ticket as per the type of
incident of death can easily be lost in an accident. I at this
stage take note of a judgment of a leaned Single Judge of
this Court in the case reported as Pyar Singh Vs. Union of
F India 2007 (8) AD Del. 262 which holds that it is the claimant
upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I agree to
this view and I am bound by this judgment and not by the
ratio of the case of Leelamma (supra).”
17.2 In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi (supra) same view was
G taken by a single Judge of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the provisions
of the Evidence Act as follows :
“22. So, from Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
it is clear that the applicants, having come to the court
asserting some facts, must prove that the death of the deceased
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 437
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

had taken place in an untoward incident and that the death A
occurred while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying
passengers as a passenger with valid ticket. Therefore, having
asserted that the deceased died in an untoward incident and
he was having a valid ticket at the time of his death, the initial
burden lies on the applicants to establish the same. The initial
B
burden of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent
admits the assertions made by the applicants. Such evidence
is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of A.W.1, no
evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the applicants. The court
may presume that the evidence which could be, and is not
produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person C
who withholds it. The best evidence rule, which governs the
production of evidence in courts, requires that the best
evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible should
always be produced. Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse presumption
D
against a person who can make available to the court, but
obstructs the availability of such an evidence. The Claims
Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rightly
dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds
in this appeal to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.”
E
17.3 In Kamrunnissa (supra), from the circumstances appearing
in that case it was held that there was no evidence that the deceased
had purchased the ticket. In the given fact situation of that case, this
Court inferred that it was not a case of ‘untoward incident’ but a case of
run over. It was observed :
F
“7. The aforestated report also reveals, that the body of the
deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the
railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of
the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position
reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach.
G
This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report,
that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is
not possible for us to accept, that such an accident could have
taken place while boarding a train.

H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 8. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of
paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted hereinabove, the report also reveals,
that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of
the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but
importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article.
This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities,
B
namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a
ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere railway station.”
17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway
premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a
bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be
C maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or
deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.
Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing
an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways
and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending
D circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the
basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained
accordingly.
Re: (iv) Rate of Interest
18. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil
E Sarabi (supra) held that rate of interest has to be at the rate of 6% from
the date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and
9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in
Mohamadi (supra), rate of interest has to be reasonable rate at par
with accident claim cases. We are of the view that in absence of any
F specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of
accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises upto the date of
payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this
regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner.

G The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.

Nidhi Jain Appeal disposed of.

H