Compensation Cannot Be Denied Under Railway Act Merely Because Negligence Or Fault Is Not Demonstrable: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court observed that the Railway Act, 1989 is a beneficial legislation and the judicial interpretation of such statutes must be consistent with the overarching doctrine of strict liability. The courts cannot construe the law in a manner that denies relief merely because negligence or fault is not demonstrable.

The High Court also held that the Railway Administration, as a public utility under the aegis of the State, had an affirmative duty to ensure that compensation was disbursed swiftly and without obstruction. Its failure to do so is a failure not merely of administration but of justice itself.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi observed, “Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly stressed that the presence of statutory provisions does not dilute strict liability; rather, they reinforce it. The Railways Act itself, in providing for compensation, reflects the legislative intent to place responsibility squarely on the railway administration. Judicial interpretation of such statutes must be consistent with the overarching doctrine of strict liability. The courts cannot construe the law in a manner that denies relief merely because negligence or fault is not demonstrable. The essence of the principle is that liability flows from the act itself, not from the state of mind of the actor.”

Advocate Biswajit Mohanty represented the Appellants, while Advocate Alok Kumar represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

An Appeal was filed against the order of the Tribunal wherein the petition filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was dismissed.

It was the case of the Appellant, son of the deceased, that his father was travelling from Allahabad to Cuttack by Train and in the course of his journey, the deceased accidentally fell down inside the compartment due to a sudden jolt and was immediately rendered unconscious. It was submitted that the deceased sustained grievous injuries to his brain along with other injuries.

The Appellant’s original Petition was dismissed on the ground that the death of the deceased was caused due to cardiac arrest. Thereafter, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal by the High Court as the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. However, the same was also dismissed by the Tribunal.

The Respondent submitted that the Tribunal was right in holding that the scope of untoward incidents did not include within its purview, incidents occurring inside the train compartment.

Court’s Observation

The question before the Orissa High Court was whether the deceased died in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?

The High Court referred to the definition of ‘passenger’ and “untoward incident” under the Railways Act.

“It is significant to note that strict liability is not confined merely to industrial undertakings. Transportation, including railways, falls squarely within its scope, for the movement of trains involves power, machinery, and velocity that create hazards to life and limb…The Railway Administration, enjoying the monopoly of carriage, cannot seek refuge under pleas of absence of negligence. It must bear the burden, for it alone has the capacity to insure against such risks and spread the loss across its operations. This ensures justice to the victim and maintains confidence in the system of public transport”, the Court said.

The High Court also observed that strict liability also resonates with the constitutional philosophy of Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.

The Bench also observed that hazardous enterprise or activity carried out under the aegis of the State cannot escape constitutional accountability when harm results. In such cases, the doctrine operates not merely as a principle of tort law but as an instrument of constitutional justice. The Indian legal system has extended strict liability into absolute liability, where no exceptions are permitted. Thus, once death or injury is established in connection with the operation of a hazardous activity like railway transport, liability is automatic and inexorable.

The High Court observed that the case of the Appellant was such where the death occurred in circumstances where no exception to liability is discernible and the event did not involve suicide, criminal act, or an irresistible force of nature that could not have been foreseen. It was a death caused in the course of train travel, squarely invoking the statutory and common law principles of strict liability. To deny compensation would be to frustrate the very objective of railway law and the protective philosophy underlying it. The Railway Administration must be held strictly liable, for the injury is integrally linked with the risk inherent in its operations.

“Where death results from train operations, the liability is not a matter of discretion but a legal mandate grounded in fairness”, the Court held.

The High Court underscored Article 38(1) of the Constitution and said that it is the duty of the State under our Constitution to function as a Welfare State, and look after the welfare of all its citizens. It was held that the Railways Act, being a social welfare legislation, must receive a broad and liberal interpretation. Its purpose is not merely to regulate railway administration but to safeguard the rights of passengers who place themselves entirely in the care of the Railways

The Court said, “The death of a passenger in train travel, where it does not fall within the specified exceptions, attracts liability under this beneficial legislation…The legislative intent is clear: no innocent family should be left uncompensated merely because fault cannot be established. This underscores the welfare-oriented character of the law.”

The High Court further criticises that the inaction on part of the Railway Administration was not only a failure merely of administration but of justice itself. The Court observed that the conduct of the Railway Administration reflected a disregard for the welfare-oriented spirit of the statute. Beneficial legislation was meant to protect the weak, not to arm the strong with weapons of delay. The High Court also held that the legislative scheme further indicates that compensation is not ex gratia but a matter of right.

“The law presumes liability in such cases, subject only to limited exceptions. Yet, instead of honouring this presumption, the Railways placed insurmountable obstacles in the path of the claimant. This Court cannot remain a silent spectator to such injustice”, the Court said.

The High Court held that there was strict liability upon the Railway Authorities and took into account the fact that the Authorities have not proven that the deceased falls within any of the exceptions carved out in the Act of 1989, and allowed the Appeal. The High Court also granted a compensation of Rs. ₹9,23,562/- to the Appellants.

Cause Title: Satyajit Swain V. Union of India

Click here to read/download Judgment