Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Satish Padole, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained on 21 September 2018 at Pathrad Railway Station. He alleged that after purchasing a ticket, he boarded the Nizamabad-Nanded Passenger train with his friend Suraj Yedke. Due to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, he fell and his right leg was crushed under the wheels. His friend pulled the chain, stopping the train. He was taken to Nanded and the ticket was handed over to the police. The railway opposed the claim, contending that the appellant tried to board a moving train despite a guard's warning, and that he did not have a valid ticket. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the appellant was not a bona fide passenger. In appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the High Court framed two issues: whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger and whether the incident was an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The court analyzed the evidence, noting that the appellant's testimony was consistent and supported by documentary evidence of disability. The railway's sole witness, the Guard, gave contradictory statements and was not credible. The court held that the appellant had purchased a ticket and handed it to the police, and the railway failed to prove otherwise. The fall due to a jerk was an accidental fall from a train, squarely covered under Section 123(c)(2) as an untoward incident. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the railway to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Bona Fide Passenger - Section 123(c)(2) and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 - The appellant fell from a train due to a jerk and sustained leg injuries. The Tribunal dismissed the claim holding he was not a bona fide passenger. The High Court reversed, finding that the appellant had purchased a ticket and handed it to police, and the railway failed to prove otherwise. Held that the incident was an untoward incident and the appellant was entitled to compensation. (Paras 7-12) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Bona Fide Passenger - The railway alleged the appellant tried to board a moving train without a ticket, but the Guard's testimony was not credible. The appellant's consistent evidence and the fact that the ticket was handed to police established his bona fide status. Held that the burden to disprove bona fides lies on the railway, which was not discharged. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket at the time of the incident and whether the injuries sustained amounted to an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30 August 2023 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, is set aside. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization.
Law Points
- burden of proof on railway to disprove bona fide passenger
- untoward incident includes accidental fall from train
- strict liability of railway for injuries to passengers
