Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors.  INSC 802 (5
H. K. Sema & Markandey Katju
REPORTABLE MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment
of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 25.6.2001 passed in MFA No.
1080 of 1998-B.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed before the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') by the husband, mother and minor son of one Smt. Abja who died on
23.5.1996 in a train accident at Varkala Railway station. The Claims Tribunal
disallowed the claim, but the appeal against the said decision was allowed by
the Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment dated 25.6.2001 and compensation
of Rs. 2 lacs with interest @ 12% from the date of the petition till the date
of payment was granted. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
4. There is no dispute that Smt. Abja was a bona fide passenger holding a
second class season ticket and an identity card issued by the Southern Railway.
As per the forensic report the cause of death was due to multiple injuries due
to the accident. The deceased fell on to the railway track and was run over by
train No.6349 Parasuram Express.
5. The Tribunal found that Smt. Abja was a bona fide passenger traveling by
6. Before the Tribunal PW-2, K. Rajan, deposed that while he was at Varkala
railway station he found one passenger falling from the Parasuram Express and
that the train had stopped. He further stated in his evidence that he went to
the north side of the platform and saw the injured lying on the platform. He
further stated that the person falling down was the lady who died on the spot.
He also stated that the deceased fell down from the compartment of the train
when the train was moving.
7. The Tribunal strangely enough held that PW-2 was an interested witness
because if he was present on the spot he would have definitely helped the
Station Master in removing the dead body from the railway track.
Further, the police would have definitely recorded his evidence. For this
reason, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-2. We are, however, of the
opinion that there was no good reason to disbelieve PW-2 because there is
nothing to show that he had any motive to give false evidence, or that he was
an interested witness. Further, his evidence could not have been discarded
merely because he did not go to the spot and help removing the dead body from
the railway track. Moreover, merely because the police did not record his
statement does not mean that he was not present or gave false evidence. It is
common knowledge that in our country often there is a large crowd on railway
platforms, and it is simply not possible for the police to take the statement
of everyone there.
8. However, the evidence of DW-1, D. Sajjan, who was the Station Master at
the railway station corroborates the evidence of PW-2. DW-1 had deposed that he
saw one girl running towards the train and trying to enter the train and she
fell down. He has further stated that the deceased Abja had attempted to board
the train and fell down from the running train. For this reason, the Tribunal
held that this was not an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of the
expression in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989
as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.
9. In appeal, the Kerala High Court was of the view that the deceased
sustained injuries, even according to the respondents, in her anxiety to get
into the train which was moving. Hence, the High Court held that the deceased
came within the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers' which is an 'untoward incident', as defined in Section
123(c) of the Railways
10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference
whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or
whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our
opinion in either case it amounts to an 'accidental falling of a passenger from
a train carrying passengers'. Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined in
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the
expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually
got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second
being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train
and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in
the Railways Act
is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a
liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence in
our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one
which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be
preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524(para 9), B. D.
Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12), Transport Corporation of India
vs. ESI Corporation (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc.
12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare
statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance
with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act
was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes
should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic
Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647( para 7), Jeewanlal
Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and
others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S. M.
Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27(para 12) etc.
13. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others 1995(6) SCC 326
(vide para 42) this Court observed:
"In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this Court
in Workmen vs. American Express International Banking Corporation wherein
Chinnappa Reddy, J. in para 4 of the Report has made the following
The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words occurring
in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human
rights' legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to
Lilliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations the imposture of
literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication
must be recognized and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned with the
'colour', the 'content' and the 'context' of such statutes (we have borrowed
the words from Lord Wilberforce's opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds). In the same
opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that law is not to be left behind in some
island of literal interpretation but is to enquire beyond the language,
unisolated from the matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is not to be
interpreted purely on internal linguistic considerations.
In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surender Kumar Verma v.
Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court we had occasion to say:
"Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and
butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad
Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of
mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological
Francis Bennion in his Statutory Interpretation Second Edn., has dealt with
the Functional Construction Rule in Part
XV of his book. The nature of purposive construction is dealt with in Part
XX at p. 659 thus:
"A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to
the legislative purpose by- (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment
where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this Code
called a purposive-and-literal construction), or (b) applying a strained
meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative
purpose (in the Code called a purposive and strained construction)."
At p. 661 of the same book, the author has considered the topic of
"Purposive Construction" in contrast with literal construction. The
learned author has observed as under:
"Contrast with literal construction - Although the term 'purposive
construction' is not new, its entry into fashion betokens a swing by the
appellate courts away from literal construction.
Lord Diplock said in 1975: 'If one looks back to the actual decisions of the
[House of Lords] on questions of statutory construction over the last 30 years
one cannot fail to be struck by the evidence of a trend away from the purely
literal towards the purposive construction of statutory provisions'. The matter
was summed up by Lord Diplock in this way - ...I am not reluctant to adopt a
purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative
language used would lead to results which would clearly defeat the purposes of the
Act. But in doing so the task on which a court of justice is engaged remains
one of construction, even where this involves reading into the Act words which
are not expressly included in it."
14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression
'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' in Section
123(c) of the Railways
Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting
compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there
are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford
traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning
to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train
accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation
under the Railways
Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression 'accidental falling of a
passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide
passenger i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to
enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a
purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.
15. Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act
defines 'passenger' to mean a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket.
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines
'untoward incident' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a
train carrying passengers. Section 124A of the Railways Act with which
we are concerned states :
"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 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, 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 - (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;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless
such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward
Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "passenger"
includes - (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a
valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a
valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident".
16. The accident in which Smt. Abja died is clearly not covered by the
proviso to 124A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons
mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A. Hence, in our
opinion, the present case is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124A
of the Railways
Act, and not its proviso.
17. Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of
railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124A it
is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
18. The theory of strict liability for hazardous activities can be said to
have originated from the historic judgment of Blackburn, J. of the British High
Court in Rylands v. Fletcher 1866 LRI Ex 265.
19. Before this decision the accepted legal position in England was that
fault, whether by an intentional act or negligence, was the basis of all
liability (see Salmond on 'Tort', 6th Edn p.12) and this principle was in
consonance with the then prevailing Laissez Faire Theory.
20. With the advance of industrialization the Laissez Faire Theory was
gradually replaced by the theory of the Welfare State, and in legal parlance
there was a corresponding shift from positivism to sociological jurisprudence.
21. It was realized that there are certain activities in industrial society
which though lawful are so fraught with possibility of harm to others that the
law has to treat them as allowable only on the term of insuring the public
against injury irrespective of who was at fault. The principle of strict
liability (also called no fault liability) was thus evolved, which was an
exception to the general principle in the law of torts that there is no
liability without fault, (vide American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn Vol 74 p. 632).
As stated above, the origin of this concept of liability without fault can be
traced back to Blackburn, J's historic decision in Rylands vs. Fletcher
22. The facts in that case were that the defendant, who owned a mill, constructed
a reservoir to supply water to the mill. This reservoir was constructed over
old coal mines, and the mill owner had no reason to suspect that these old
diggings led to an operating colliery. The water in the reservoir ran down the
old shafts and flooded the colliery. Blackburn J. held the mill owner to be
liable, on the principle that "The person who for his own purposes brings
on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it
escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its
escape". On appeal this principle of liability without fault was affirmed
by the House of Lords (per Cairns, J.) but restricted to non- natural users
vide (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
23. Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) in fact created a new legal principle (the
principle of strict liability in the case of hazardous activities), though
professing to be based on analogies drawn from existing law. The judgment is noteworthy
because it is an outstanding example of a creative generalization. As Wigmore
writes, this epoch making judgment owes much of its strength to 'the broad
scope of the principle announced, the strength of conviction of its expounder,
and the clarity of his exposition'.
24. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendants' activity
rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on (vide 'Torts
by Michael Jones, 4th Edn. p. 247). There are many activities which are so
hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of
another. The principle of strict liability states that the undertakers of these
activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any
fault on their part. As Fleming says "permission to conduct such activity
is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it
causes, as an appropriate item of its overheads" (see Fleming on 'Torts'
6th Edn p. 302).
25. Thus in cases where the principle of strict liability applies, the
defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though
the defendant may not have been at any fault.
26. The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is two fold (i) The people
who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the
risk of damage that their activities generate and (ii) it operates as a loss
distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity (usually a
corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and
higher prices for its products (vide 'Torts' by Michael Jones 4th Edn p. 267).
27. As pointed out by Clerk and Lindsell (see 'Torts', 14th Edn) "The
fault principle has shortcomings. The very idea suggests that compensation is a
form of punishment for wrong doing, which not only has the tendency to make
tort overlap with criminal law, but also and more regrettably, implies that a
wrongdoer should only be answerable to the extent of his fault. This is unjust
when a wholly innocent victim sustains catastrophic harm through some trivial
fault, and is left virtually without compensation".
28. Many jurists applaud liability without fault as a method for imposing
losses on superior risk bearers. Their argument is that one who should know that
his activity, even though carefully prosecuted, may harm others, and should
treat this harm as a cost of his activity. This cost item will influence
pricing, and will be passed on to consumers spread so widely that no one will
be seriously effected (vide Article by Prof. Clarence Morris entitled
'Hazardous Enterprises and Risk Bearing Capacity' published in Yale Law
Journal, 1952 p. 1172).
29. The rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) was subsequently interpreted to
cover a variety of things likely to do mischief on escape, irrespective of
whether they were dangerous per se e.g. water, electricity, explosions, oil,
noxious fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation, a flagpole, etc (see
'Winfield and Jolowicz on 'Tort", 13th Edn p 425) vide National Telephone
Co. vs. Baker (1893) 2 Ch 186, Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. Ltd. vs.
Cape Town Tramways Co. Ltd. (1902) AC 381, Hillier vs.
Air Ministry (1962) CLY 2084, etc. In America the rule was adapted and
expressed in the following words " one who carried on an ultra hazardous
activity is liable to another whose person, land or chattels the actor should
recognize as likely to be harmed by the unpreventable miscarriage of the
activity for harm resulting thereto from that which makes the activity ultra
hazardous, although the utmost care is exercised to prevent the harm"
(vide Restatement of the Law of Torts, vol 3, p. 41).
30. Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) gave English Law one of its most creative
generalizations which, for a long time, looked destined to have a successful
future. Yet, after a welcome start given to it by Victorian Judges the rule was
progressively emasculated, until subsequently it almost became obsolete in
England. According to Dias and Markesins (see 'Tort Law' 2nd Edn p. 355) one
reason for this may well be that as a generalization justifying a shift from
fault to strict liability it may have come prematurely.
The 19th Century had not yet fully got over laissez faire, and it was only
in the 20th Century that the concepts of social justice and social security, as
integral parts of the general theory of the Welfare State, were firmly
31. As already mentioned above, the rule of strict liability laid down by
Blackburn J. in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) was restricted in appeal by Lord
Cairns to non-natural users, the word 'natural' meaning 'that which exists in
or by nature, and is not artificial', and that was the sense in which it was
used by Lord Cairns. However, later it acquired an entirely different meaning
i.e. that which is ordinary and usual, even though it may be artificial' vide
Rickards vs. Lothian (1913) AC 263 followed in Read vs.
Lyons (1947) AC 156. Thus the expression 'non-natural' was later interpreted
to mean 'abnormal', and since in an industrial society industries can certainly
not be called 'abnormal' the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) was totally
emasculated in these subsequent rulings. Such an interpretation, as Prof.
Newark writes, 'would have surprised Lord Cairns and astounded Blackburn, J'
(see article entitled 'Non-natural User and Rylands vs. Fletcher,' published in
Modern Law Review, 1961 vol 24, p 557).
32. In Read vs. Lyons (1947) AC 156) which was a case of injury due to a
shell explosion in an ammunitions factory, Lord Macmillan while rejecting the
claim of the plaintiff made further restrictions to the rule in Rylands vs.
Fletcher (supra) by holding that the rule "derives from a conception of
mutual duties of neighbouring landowners", and was therefore inapplicable
to personal injuries. He also held that to make the defendant liable there
should be escape from a place under the defendant's control and occupation to a
place outside his occupation, and since the plaintiff was within the premises
at the time of the accident the injury was not due to escape therefrom. In this
way Read vs. Lyons (supra) destroyed the very spirit of the decision in Rylands
vs. Fletcher (supra) by restricting its principle to the facts of that
particular case, instead of seeing its underlying juristic philosophy.
33. Apart from the above, some other exceptions carved out to the rule in
Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) are (a) consent of the plaintiff; (b) common
benefit; (c) Act of stranger; (d) Act of God; (e) Statutory authority; (f)
default of plaintiff etc.
34. In Dunne vs. North Western Gas Boards (1964) 2 QB 806 Sellers L.J.
asserted that the defendant's liability in Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HC
330 "could simply have been placed on the defendants' failure of duty to
take reasonable care", and it seems a logical inference from this that the
Court of Appeals considered the rule to have no useful function in modern
times. As Winfield remarks, the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra), by reason
of its many limitations and exceptions, today seldom forms the basis of a
successful claim in the Courts (see Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 13th Edn p.
442), and it seems that the rule "has hardly been taken seriously by
modern English Courts", vide Att. Gen. vs. Geothermal Produce (N.Z.) Ltd.,
(1987) 2 NZ1R 348.
35. As Winfield remarks, because of the various limitations and exceptions
to the rule "we have virtually reached the position where a defendant will
not be considered liable when he would not be liable according to the ordinary
principles of negligence" (see Winfield on Tort, 13th Edn p. 443).
36. This repudiation of the principle in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) is
contrary to the modern judicial philosophy of social justice. The injustice may
clearly be illustrated by the case of Pearson vs. North Western Gas Board
(1968) 2 All ER 669. In that case the plaintiff was seriously injured and her
husband was killed by an explosion of gas, which also destroyed their home. Her
action in Court failed, in view of the decision in Dunne vs.
North Western Gas Board (1964) 2 QB 806. Thus the decline of the rule in
Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) left the individual injured by the activities of
industrial society virtually without adequate protection.
37. However, we are now witnessing a swing once again in favour of the
principle of strict liability. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the Chernobyl nuclear
disaster, the crude oil spill in 1988 on to the Alaska coast line from the oil
tanker Exxon Valdez, and other similar incidents have shocked the conscience of
people all over the world and have aroused thinkers to the dangers in
industrial and other activities, in modern society.
38. In England, the Pearson Committee recommended the introduction of strict
liability in a number of circumstances (though none of these recommendations
have so far been implemented, with the exception of that related to defective
39. In India the landmark Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court
in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 has gone much further than
Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) in imposing strict liability. The Court observed
"if the enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity for its profit the law must presume that such permission is
conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on
account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate
item of its overheads". The Court also observed that this strict liability
is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands vs.
40. The decision in M.C. Mehta's case (supra) related to a concern working
for private profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply
to statutory authorities (like the railways), public corporations or local bodies
which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit.
41. It is true that attempts to apply the principle of Rylands vs. Fletcher
(supra) against public bodies have not on the whole succeeded vide
Administrative Law by P.P. Craig, 2nd Edn. p. 446, mainly because of the idea
that a body which acts not for its own profit but for the benefit of the
community should not be liable. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on
a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is
because such public bodies benefit the community that it is unfair to leave the
result of a non-negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular
individual rather than to spread it among the community generally.
42. In America the U.S. Supreme Court in Lairds vs. Nelms (1972) 406 US 797,
following its earlier decision in Dalehite vs. U.S. (1953) 346 US 15, held that
the U.S. was not liable for damages from supersonic booms caused by military
planes as no negligence was shown. Schwartz regards this decision as
unfortunate (see Schwartz ' Administrative Law', 1984).
However, as regards private enterprises the American Courts award huge
damages (often running into millions of dollars) for accidents due to hazardous
activities or substances.
43. In France, the liability of the State is without fault, and the
principle of strict liability applies (see C.J. Hanson "Government
Liability in Tort in the English and French Legal Systems")
44. In India, Article 38(1) of the Constitution states "the State shall
strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and
political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life".
45. Thus, 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.
46. In various social welfare statutes the principle of strict liability has
been provided to give insurance to people against death and injuries,
irrespective of fault.
47. Thus, Section 3 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act 1923 provides for compensation for injuries arising out of
and in the course of employment, and this compensation is not for negligence on
the part of the employer but is a sort of insurance to workmen against certain
risks of accidents.
48. Similarly, Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989,
Sections 140 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, the Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 etc.
incorporate the principle of strict liability.
49. However, apart from the principle of strict liability in Section 124A of
the Railways Act
and other statutes, we can and should develop the law of strict liability de
hors statutory provisions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in M.C. Mehta's case (supra). In our opinion, we have to develop new
principles for fixing liability in cases like the present one.
50. It is recognized that the Law of Torts is not stagnant but is growing.
As stated by the American Restatement of Torts, Art 1; vide D. L. Lloyd:
"The entire history of the development of the tort law shows a
continuous tendency, which is naturally not uniform in all common law
countries, to recognize as worthy of legal protection, interests which were
previously not protected at all or were infrequently protected and it is
unlikely that this tendency has ceased or is going to cease in future."
51. There are dicta both ancient and modern that the known categories of
tort are not closed, and that novelty of a claim is not an absolute defence.
Thus, in Jay Laxmi Salt works (P) Ltd. vs. The State of Gujarat. JT 1994 (3)
SC 492 (vide para 7), the Supreme Court observed:
"Law of torts being a developing law its frontiers are incapable of
being strictly barricaded".
52. In Ashby vs. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raym 938, it was observed (vide Pratt
"Torts are infinitely various, not limited or confined".
53. In Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 (619) (HL), it was observed by
the House of Lords (per Macmillan, L.J.):
"The conception of legal responsibility may develop in adaptation to altering
social conditions and standards. The criterion of judgment must adjust and
adapt itself to the changing circumstances of life."
54. The above view was followed in Rookes vs. Barnard (1964) AC 1129 (1169)
(HL) and Home Officer vs. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL).
55. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant there was no fault on the part of the
Railways, or that there was contributory negligence, is based on a total
misconception and hence has to be rejected.
56. Thus, there is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.