Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the original claimants, Nirmala wd/o Nagorao Gadling and Sachin s/o Nagorao Gadling, challenging the judgment and award dated 03/05/2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/2015/0282. The claimants sought compensation for the death of Nagorao Gadling, who died on 09/05/2015 while traveling by Train No. 51184 Narkhed-Bhusawal Passenger from Warud to Benoda. The deceased had a valid ticket and was standing near the door due to heavy rush. A sudden jerk caused him to fall from the running train, resulting in death on the spot. The incident occurred on the Up Loop Line of Warud Railway Station. The railway contested the claim, denying that the incident was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and alleging that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The tribunal rejected the claim, reasoning that the deceased's body was cut from the chest, which could not happen from a simple fall from a train, and thus the incident was not an untoward incident. The High Court considered the evidence, including the affidavit of claimant Sachin Gadling, police papers, and the DRM report. The court held that the tribunal's reasoning was speculative and contrary to the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c), which includes falling from a train. The court noted that the claimants had proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket. The railway failed to prove any exception under Section 124-A. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal's order, and directed the railway to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c) and 124-A - Fall from Train - The death of a passenger who fell from a running train due to sudden jerk and heavy rush is an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, 1989. The nature of injuries (body cut into two parts) does not negate the incident being untoward. The railway is strictly liable to pay compensation unless exceptions apply. (Paras 1-10) B) Railways Act - Bonafide Passenger - Burden of Proof - Section 124-A - The claimants established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger holding a valid ticket. The railway's denial without credible evidence does not shift the burden. The tribunal erred in rejecting the claim based on speculation about the manner of fall. (Paras 2-8) C) Railways Act - Compensation - Quantum - Section 124-A - The claimants are entitled to compensation as per the schedule. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the tribunal's order and directing payment of compensation with interest. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the deceased due to fall from a train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the claimants to compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 03/05/2018 is set aside. The respondent/railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization. The amount be paid within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- strict liability
- bonafide passenger
- burden of proof
- compensation under Railways Act
