Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Atul Tandekar, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a train accident on 15 July 2017. He alleged that while travelling from Gondia to Nagpur by Howrah-Ahmedabad Express, he fell from the train due to a sudden jerk near Pachpaoli, Nagpur, and his legs were crushed under the wheels, resulting in amputation of both legs. The journey ticket was lost in the incident. The Railway opposed the claim, contending that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and that the injuries were not caused by an untoward incident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the evidence was insufficient. On appeal, the High Court framed two issues: whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger and whether the injury was an untoward incident. The appellant's counsel argued that the affidavit of the appellant, stating he had purchased a ticket and lost it in the accident, along with medical records and the spot panchanama, discharged the initial burden of proof. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi. The Railway's counsel argued that the appellant was negligent and that the ticket was not produced. The High Court held that the appellant's affidavit was sufficient to prove he was a bona fide passenger, as the ticket was lost in the accident. The court also held that falling from a running train due to a sudden jerk is an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The court noted that the appellant's both legs were amputated, which falls under Entry No.3 of Part-II of the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Railway to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization.
Headnote
A) Railway Law - Bona Fide Passenger - Initial Burden of Proof - Section 124A Railways Act, 1989 - The claimant's affidavit stating purchase of ticket and loss in accident, coupled with medical records and panchanama, is sufficient to discharge initial burden; strict proof of ticket not required in view of Union of India v. Rina Devi (AIR 2018 SC 2362). (Paras 7-10) B) Railway Law - Untoward Incident - Fall from Train - Section 123(c) Railways Act, 1989 - Fall of a passenger from a running train due to sudden jerk constitutes an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A. (Paras 8, 11) C) Railway Law - Compensation - Amputation of Both Legs - Schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 - Entry No.3 of Part-II - Amputation of both legs below knee qualifies for compensation under the Rules. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket and whether the injury was sustained in an untoward incident under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 10.01.2020 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, set aside. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 to the appellant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization.
Law Points
- Bona fide passenger
- Untoward incident
- Initial burden of proof
- Section 123 Railways Act 1989
- Section 124A Railways Act 1989
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 Section 23
