Holding

Liability under Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 is not attracted where the passenger's injury is not caused by an accident to the train or a part of the train.

Summary

The petitioner, a passenger, fell from a bogie that was being shunted at a railway station and sustained a hand injury. The Railway Administration argued that the injury was not the result of an "accident to the train" as contemplated by Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The High Court had interpreted "accident" broadly and awarded compensation, holding that an accident need not be to the train itself. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 82A and held that liability arises only when an accident to the train or a part of it occurs, and a separate mishap to the passenger must be causally linked to that accident. Since the passenger's fall was due to a jolt during shunting and not an accident to the train, the Court concluded that Section 82A does not apply. Consequently, the petition for special leave was dismissed, although the Court noted the High Court's interpretation was erroneous.

Issues considered

Whether the injury sustained by a passenger falling from a bogie being shunted constitutes an "accident to the train" within the meaning of Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Whether liability for compensation under Section 82A is attracted when the passenger's mishap is not linked to an accident to the train.

Legislation cited

Indian Railways Act, 1890s. 82A

Subjects

Indian Railways ActSection 82Arailway liabilityaccident definitionpassenger injuryshuntingcompensation

Judgment

555

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
SUNJL KUMAR GHOSH.

August 21, 1984 B

[A.P. SEN AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.)

Indian Railways Act 1890, Section 82-4.-Scope of-Bogie of pa~senger
train shunted at railway, station-Passenger travelling in bogie falling down
from 'train and hand crushed by train-Railway's liability for compensation-
Extend of.
c
•
~accldent'-What is-Explained.

Wor:ds and Phrases : 'accident'-Meaning of-Section 82A, Indian Railways
Act 1890.
D
The resPondent was travel1iog by train as a bona fide pasSeoger,
Wb~le the" bogic in wbic~ he was travelling was being shunted at a Railway
Station, the· respondent fell down from the train near the water column at
the end of lhe platform and his right band was crushed by that· part of the
iraiO wliich was being shunted.
E
. The District Judge did not accept the version of the respondent that
the bogie in which be was travellin~ received a sudden jerk and that he

. fell down on that account, and dismissed lhe applicatiC'D for compensation,

In appeal, the High Court, held that the word 'accident' in section
82A must mean to include within its ambit all incidents resulting in the
death of or bodily injury to any passenger during bis rail journey, occuring II
in the course of working of a railway, if it involves a passenger train or
• apart thereof. and awarded compensation on the premise that it was not
essential to establish that there was an 'accident to the train' by which the
passenger was trave11ing.

In the Appeal to this Court, on the question of liability of the
Railway Administration under Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act, G
1890.

HELD: 1. The liability under Section 82A will not be attracted
• in the case of a mish:ip or injury sustained by a passenger on account of
falling down whilst getting on or off a running or stadonary train or
sustained when he slips in a compartment Or when something falls on him
wbilil travellin~. J\ll sq9h 111isbaps; when QOI Qoqn~te<l with the acci<lent ff
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] I S.C.R •

A to the train, or a part of it, would be accidents to the passenger only.
And until both the mishaps take place, one to the train, and another, a
sympathetic one to the passenger, the liability under section 82A of the
Act will not be allracted. So alsO. unless the loss or damage to the
property of a passenger is attributable to the accident to the train, liability
under Section 82A will not be attracted. [562G·S63A)

B In the instant case, liability under Section 82A will not be attracted,
as it cannot be said that there has been an accident lo the train and the
mishap has nexus with it. [562G)

2. The philosophy of Section 82A appears to be to turn an existing
'fault liability into a 'fault' or no f<Jult'.liability. And presumably in order
c to be rfair' to the passengers who pay the 'fare' for a safe (safe from accident
to the train) journey, the legislature, with an eye on social welfare, bas
provided for compensltion by a summary proceeding and has m.ade the
liability fault-free. [561B-D]

3. That the 'accident' envisioned by the first part of Section 87A( 1)
i! an accident 'to' the 'train' or 'a part of lhe train' is self-evident. The
D Section 'speaks of ·an accident by reason (Jf either ( l) collision or {2) derail-
ment or (3) mher accident to a train. [560G-H] •
4. What is provided is compensation for death or injury caused or
loss sustained on account of accident 'to' the train. What is 'not' provided
is compensation for death of the passenger 'whilst' travelling or injury
sustained by a passenger 'whilst travelling on :he train, say, by reason or
E his own act default or misfortune, which bas no nexus with the 'accident'
to the tral11.' What the section does is t'l turn a liability which was
contingent on fault' into an 'absolute' liability. What howe~cr, it does not
do,' is to provide a free insuran~e cover to the person and property of a
~a·.ssenger sO that compensatiori can be claimed for the accidental death
of Or injury to the passenger and or loss or damage to his property even
when there has been no 'accident' to the train carrying such a passenger.
F [56 JE-G]

5. An accident is an occurrence or an event which is unforeseen
and startles one when it takes ptace but does not startle one when it does
not take place. It is the happening of the unexpected, not the happening
•
of the expected, which is called an accident. An event' or occurrence tha
happening of which jg ordinariiy expected in the normal course by almost
G every one undertaking a rail journey cannot be called an •accident'. But
the happening of something which is not inherent in the normal course of
events and which is not ordinarily expected to happen or occur is called a
•.
mishap or an accident. A collision of two trains or derailment of a train
or blowing up of a train is something which no one ordinarily expects
in the course of a journey. .That is why it falls within the parameters
of the. definition of accident.. But a jolt to the bogie which is detached.
from one train ·and attached to another cannot be termed as an accident. No
shunting can take place 1,1,ifhout such a jerk or an impact at least when it
ff i~ ~ttached or anne~ed .to a tr~in b?' a -sh~ntin~ en~i~e. if~ P-"'isen~er
UNION v. s. K. GHOSH (Thakkar, J.) 551

tumbles inside the compartment or tumbles out of the compartment when A
he is getting inside the compartmet or stepping out of the compartmet it
cannot be said that an accident has occurred to the train or part of the
train. It is doubtless an accident 'to the passenger'. But not to the train.
[562B-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 11525 of 1983 B

From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th March, 1983
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. (First) Appeal No.
88 of 1979

M. S. Gujral and R. N. Poddar for the Petitioners. c
The Judgment of the Court was deli,ered by
•
THAKKAR, J. Two mishaps, one, 'to the train' by which a
passenger is travelling, and another, a sympthetic one, having D
• nexus with the former, and going arm-in-arm with it, 'to the
passenger' himself, must occur in the course of the same transaction
in order to attract liability of the Railway Administration under
Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, rightly contends
counsel for the Railway.
f

The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in not up- E
holding this unexceptionable proposition and in awarding
compensation to a passenger on the premise that it was not
essential to establish that there was an 'accident to the train, by
which the passenger was travelling.

Counsel for the Railway was fair enough (we very highly F
appreciate this gesture) to state that it was on account of the
" erroneous interpretation placed by the High Court which was
likely to give rise to untenable claims in future, rather than the
relatively small amount awarded to the passengor, that the Rail-
way was obliged to approach this Court by way of the present
Special Leave Petition. We declined to interfere with the G
operative order of the High Court in exercise of Jurisdiction. under·
Art. l 36 of the Constitution of India having regard to the size
of the award (both sides wonld have expended more than the
• amount at stake in litigation expenses if leave was granted) but
observed that the view taken by the High Court in regard to the
question of law involv\ld in th\' matter was erroneous. We now ff
558 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] I S.C.R.

A proceed to articulate our reasons in support of the view expressed
by US·

The question of interpretation of Section 82A of the Act
has arisen in the following contextual backdrop· "'-'1.-
B
The respondent was trave]ling by train in his capacity as a
bonafide passenger. While the bogie in which the respondent '
was travelling was being shunted at a Railway Station, the
,
respondent accidentally fell down from the train, near the water
column at the end of the platform, and his right hand was
c crushed by that part of the train which was being shunted As
to how e~actly the respondent sustained the injury, the versions
of the parties differ. The District Judge did not accept the version
of the respondent that the bogie in which he was trave}ling •
received a sudden jerk and he fell down on that account. The
Railway Administration on the other hand contended that the
D respondent sustained the injury in the manner described in the
relevant contemporaneous record (Assistant Station Master's
Diary) namely:

"the injury was sustained by the appellant in going
to the rear end of the train and possibly boarding one t
E of the bogies which was being detached during the
shunting operation and in this process he appears to
have been hit by the water column when these bogies
(a part of the train) were being moved during the

F
shunting operation." ..
Now Section 82A of the Act in so far as material reads
thus:-
•
"~2A. -Liability of Railway Administration in respect
of accidents to trains carrying passengers -
G
(J) When in the course of working a railway accident
occurs, being either a collision between trains of
which one is a train carrying passengers or the
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
ff default on the part of the railway ad lI!iQ istratiol\
UNION v. s. K. GHOSH (Thakkar, J.) 559

such as would entitle a person who has been A
injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action
and recover damages in respect thereof, the
t railway administration shall, notwithstanding any
other provision of law to the contrary, be liable
to pay compensation to the extent set out in sub-
section ( 2) and to that extent only for loss ·s
occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as
a result of such accident, and for personal injury
and loss, destruction or deterioration of animals
or goods by the passenger and accompanying the
passenger in his compartment or on the train,
sustained as a result of such accident. C

( 2 ! This liability of a railway administration under
this Section shalt in no case exceed fifty thousand
rupees in respect of any one person."
(Emphasis added)· D

In interpreting Section 82A the High Court speaks thus:-
, "The word accident therefore according to its
ordinary meaning, which must be given to .it and con-
strued in the context in which it is used in Section 8 2A E
must mean to include within its ambit all incidents
resulting in the death of or bodily injury to any pas·
senger during his rail journey, occurring in the course of
working a railway, if it involves a passenger train or
a part thereof. Any incident treate.d as railway ai;ci-
dent involving a passanger train by the public at large F
• and the railway staff should be treated to be such an
accident, falling within the ambit of Section 82A· Any
mishap or misfortune in the working of a railway in-
volving a passenger train or a part thereof resulting in
the death of or personal injury to a passenger travelling
therein, during his rail journey is an accident within G
the ambit of Section 82A. This will, of course exclude
any incident voluntarily and consciously invited by the
passenger, i.e. suicide by jumping in front of the moving
train.''

Jn our opinion the High Court has shut its eyes to the 'H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 985] 1 S.C.R.

A significance of the essential precondition engrafted in Section
82A in regard to the 'accident, to the tram'. Why we say so will
become evident presently.

A 'body- scan' of the aforesaid provision (Section 82A) '
B reveals that:-

(1) The machinery of the Section is set in motion only ·"
provided there is an 'accident'.
I

( 2) The accident must be 'to' the the 'train' or 'part of
c the train' carrying passengers.

(3) The accident to the train carrying passengers may be
due to:

D
(a) Collision of two trains one' of which is the train •
carrying passengers; or

(b) derailment of such train; or

(c) other accident 'to' such a train. •
E
( 4) In case any passenger travelling by such train dies, or
sustains any injury to his person or property, as a
result of or on account of such accident to the train or
a part of the train carrying passengers, com,iensation
.
to the extent provided in the Section will become payable.
F
(5) such compensation wlll be payable regardless of whe· •
ther or not the accident to the train carrying passengers
is due to negligence or fault on the part of the railwav
administration· •
G •
That the 'accident' envisioned by the first part of Section
82A (i) is an accident 'to' the 'train' or 'a part of the train' is
self-evident. The Section speaks of an accident by reason of either •
(1) collision or (2) derailment or (3) other accident to a train.
H There is theref0 re no room for any ambi$Uity on that scor~.
UNiON v. s. K. GliOSH (Tha/ckar, J.) 561

So also it cannot be gainsaid that the 'accident, adverted A
I
to therein cannot refer to an accident to a passenger 'whilst' on a
passenger train even if the said train is not at all involved in
• any accident. Common sense and reason buttress this proposition,
for, the philosophy of Section 82A appears to be to turn an
existing 'fault' liability into a •fault or no fault' liability. Why? ,B
Because a carrier who transports passengers as a part of his "
business, when he eharges fare, impliedly guarantees to carry him
with safety in so far as such safety is within his power. It is
within his power to transport the passenger without an accident to
the train, for such an accident is not something which is ordinarily c
or in the normal course of events inherent in the running of a
train. And presumably in order to be 'fair' to the passengers
who pay the •fare' for a safe (safe from accident to the train)
journey, the legislature, with an eye on social welfare, has
provided for compensation by a summary proceeding and has
made the liability fault-free. D
lj

But te ensure safe travel is not to "insure" the passenger
against accident to himself 'whilst' travelling. The distinction
' deserves to be spot-lighted. What 'is' provided is compensation
for death or injury caused or loss sustained 'on account of acci- .E
dent 'to' the train. What is •not' provided is compensation f;r
death of the passenger 'whilst' travelling or injury sustained by
a pa15enger 'whilst' travelling on the train, say, by reason of his
own act, default, or misfortune, which has no nexus with the
'accident to the train'. In other words what the Section does is to F
,, turn a liability which was 'contingent on fault' into an 'absolute'
liability. What, however, it does not do, is to provide a free
'insurance cover' to the person and property of a passenger so
that compensation can be claimed for the accidental death of or
injury to the passenger and/or loss or damage to his property
even when there has been no 'accident' to ttie train carrying such
.o
•
a passenger.

,, What is the position when a passenger falls down from
the train while the bogie, in which he is travelling, is being
shunted? Say, when he is standing in the door frame or his trying
.
J{
562 SUPREME COU!tT REPORTS [1985] I s.c.R. ''
A to get in or get out of the train. on account of the jolt to the
bogie at the time of impact with the rest of the train? Is it an
accident 'to the train' so as to attract the liability under Section
82A? The answer substantially depends on the answer to the •
question : what is an 'accident'? An accident is an occurrence or
B
an event which is unforeseen and startles one when it takes place
but does not startle one when it does not take place. It is the
happening of the unexpected, not the happening of the expected,
which is called an accident. In other words an event or occur-
rence the happening of which is ordinarily expected in tbe normal
course by almost every one undertaking a rail journey cannot
be called an 'accident'. But the happening of something which
is not inherent in the normal course of events, and which is not
ordinarily expected to happen or occur, is called a mishap or an
accident. Now a collision of two trains or derailment of a train
or blowing up of a train is something which no one ordinarily
a expects in the course of a journey. That is why it falls within the
'
parameters of the definition of accident. But a jolt to the bogie
which is detached from one. train and attached to anotheP cannot be
termed as an accident. No shunting can take place without such a
jerk or an impact at!east when it is attached or annexed to a train •
E by a shunting engine. If a passenger tumbles inside the compart-
ment or tumbles out of the compartment when be is getting inside
the compartment, or stepping out of the compartment, it cannot be
said that an accident has occurred to the train or a part of the train.
It is doubtless an accident 'to the passenger'. But not to the train.
F Otherwise it will have to be held that every time a bogie is detached
in the course of shunting operation and attached or annexed to a
train in the course of the said operation the train meets with an
accident. And if such an event or occurrence is to be ordinarily
expected as a part of every day life, it cannot be termed as an
accident-accident to the train (or a part of it).

G In the case of a mishap to the.passenger in such circumstances
it cannot be said that there has been an accident to the train and
•
the mishap has nexus with it. The liability under Section 82A
will not therefore be attracted in such cases. Or in the case of a
mishap to a passenger in similar circumstances, such as an injury
sustained on account of falling down whilst getting on or off a
running or stationary train or sustained when he slips in a' compart-
H ment or when something falls on him whilst travelling. 'All such
UNION •.• s. It. GHOSH (Thakkar, J.) 563
l
mishaps, when not connected with the accident to the train, or a A
part of it, would be accidents to the passenger only. And until both
the mishaps take place, one to the train, and another, a sympathetic,
one to the passenger, the liability under Section 82A of the Act will
• not be attracted. So also, unless the loss or damage to the property
of a passenger is attributable to the accident to the train, liability
under Section 82A will not be attracted. B

In our opinion, Section 82A of the Indian Railways Act,
1890 is not capable of the rather strained interpretation placed by
the High Court and the true position of law is as unfolded in the
discussion made heretobefore. 1hat is the reason why we have
been constrained to observe that the decision of the High Court is c
not correct, whilst disposing of the petition for special leave.

N.V.K.
'

'
'

•