Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the appellants, Ramesh Laxmanrao Dighade and Mrs. Sindhu w/o Ramesh Dighade, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10/05/2018 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/2015/0028, whereby the Tribunal dismissed their claim for compensation. The appellants are the parents of the deceased, Amol Ramesh Dighade. The deceased was appointed at the State Reserve Police Force and joined on 25/07/2014 at SRPF, B.T No.4 Camp, Nagpur. For training, he had to go to Daund on 04/08/2014, and for that purpose, he visited his house to collect necessary clothes and money. He purchased a valid ordinary class ticket bearing no. 38982401 dated 01/08/2014 and reached Sindhi Railway Station at 6.00 a.m. He boarded the Nagpur–Bhusawal passenger train No. 1386. Due to rush in the compartment, he sat near the toilet where few passengers hit him, and he fell down from the running train and came under the wheels, resulting in his head being separated from his body and instantaneous death. The respondent railway contested the claim, submitting that no such incident covered under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act occurred, and that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The Tribunal concluded that the death was due to suicide as the body was cut into pieces, and dismissed the claim. The legal issues were whether the death was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) and whether the railway was liable under Section 124-A. The appellants argued that the death was accidental, while the railway contended it was suicide. The court analyzed that the railway failed to prove suicide, as the injuries were consistent with a fall from a train. The court held that the death was an 'untoward incident' and the railway was liable. 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 till realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act, 1989 - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c) and Section 124-A - Compensation - The death of a passenger who fell from a train and was run over constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The railway is strictly liable to pay compensation under Section 124-A unless the incident falls within the exceptions, such as suicide. The burden of proving suicide lies on the railway. (Paras 2-14) B) Railways Act, 1989 - Suicide - Burden of Proof - Section 124-A Exception - The railway's defense that the deceased committed suicide must be proved by cogent evidence. Mere speculation that the body was cut into pieces does not establish suicide, as such injuries can occur when a person falls from a train and is run over. The Tribunal erred in concluding suicide without evidence. (Paras 5-14) C) Railways Act, 1989 - Bonafide Passenger - Section 123(c) - The deceased was a bonafide passenger as he held a valid ticket. The railway's contention that he was not a bonafide passenger was rejected. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the deceased Amol Ramesh Dighade was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the appellants to compensation under Section 124-A, or whether it was a suicide, which is an exception to liability.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 10/05/2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The respondent railway 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
- Strict liability
- Railway accident
- Suicide presumption
- Burden of proof
- Bonafide passenger
