http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: P.A. NARAVANAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/02/1998

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, S. RJENDRA BABU.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T DR. ANAND. J.:      Special 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.      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, sha 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 trail 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  court want  on to admit that because  of clearances  for the  signal not having been obtained, the train stopped towards the south or gate no. 22 for about  a minute  and "even at that time the bell in this 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 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 ?"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    The guard replied:      "Ans,  No."  So  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 concened  at the  moment with the outcome of the trial of that case.      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.      We have  hard learned  counsel for  the parties and Or. Singhvi, whom  we had  requested to  act as amicus curiae in this case.      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.      There is  a common  law duty  of taking reasonable care which  must  be  attached  to  all  carriers  including  the railways. In  this case,  there has been 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 ben lost.      Our attention  has  been  drawn  by  Dr.  Singhvi,  the learned amious,  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 1239(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines and "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.      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 these 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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  quietus  to  this litigation now.      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. 2,00,00/-  (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 appellant.  The among 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.