Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 28/04/2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in OA(IIu)/NGP/2015/0213, whereby the Tribunal rejected the claim for compensation filed by the appellants, who are the parents of the deceased Sk. Hafeez. The deceased, along with his elder sister and brother, came to Akola Railway Station on 06/12/2014 to drop his sister to Malkapur. The brother purchased two railway tickets from Akola to Malkapur for the deceased and his sister. Due to crowd, the deceased and his sister boarded the Prerna Express in different bogies. The deceased was standing near the door of the compartment. While the train was departing from Akola Railway Station, there was a sudden jerk, causing the deceased to fall from the running train near KM No.583/11-13, resulting in his death on the spot. The sister handed over the ticket to the Ticket Collector at Malkapur. The claimants contended that the death was caused by an untoward incident while the deceased was a bonafide passenger, entitling them to compensation. The Railway Administration resisted the claim, asserting that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that his death was due to his own negligence. The Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that his negligence caused the accident. The High Court framed the issue of whether the death amounts to an untoward incident under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court analyzed the evidence, including the D.R.M. report, spot panchanama, and oral testimony. The court noted that the railway administration failed to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger or that his death was due to his own negligence. The court held that the sudden jerk causing the fall is an untoward incident, and the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Railway Administration to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Bonafide Passenger - Section 124A - The court considered whether the death of a passenger who fell from a train due to a sudden jerk constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court held that the death was caused by an untoward incident and the deceased was a bonafide passenger, as the railway administration failed to prove any exception under the proviso to Section 124A. (Paras 1-10) B) Railways Act - Burden of Proof - Negligence of Deceased - Section 124A proviso - The court examined the burden on the railway administration to prove that the death was due to the negligence of the deceased. The court held that the railway administration did not discharge its burden, and the mere fact that the deceased was standing near the door does not amount to negligence. (Paras 5-10) C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - D.R.M. Report - The court assessed the evidentiary value of the D.R.M. report and other documents. The court found that the D.R.M. report did not establish negligence on the part of the deceased, and the oral evidence of the claimants was credible. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the deceased due to a fall from a train caused by a sudden jerk amounts to an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 28/04/2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The respondent-Union of India is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the appellants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- bonafide passenger
- strict liability
- sudden jerk
- negligence of deceased
- burden of proof
- Section 124A Railways Act
- 1989
- Section 124A proviso
