Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Sadhna wd/o Narendra Jagtap, mother of the deceased Praful, filed a claim for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- under the Railways Act, 1989, alleging that her son died in an untoward incident on 26.11.2018. The deceased had purchased a journey ticket from Chandur Railway to Mumbai and boarded Train No. 8030 UP (Shalimar Express). While the train was running, he accidentally fell down and died on the spot at Pole No. 691/23 at Chandur Railway Station. The appellant claimed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death was an untoward incident. The respondent-railway denied the claim, asserting that the deceased had not purchased a ticket, there was no eye witness, and the death might have been due to his own negligent act or self-inflicted injury. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim. On appeal, the High Court considered the evidence, including the appellant's testimony and the station memo. The court noted that the railway did not examine any witness and failed to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the incident fell within the exceptions under Section 124A of the Railways Act. The court held that the death was an untoward incident and the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Railway Law - Untoward Incident - Bona Fide Passenger - Section 124A, Railways Act, 1989 - The court considered whether the death of a passenger who fell from a train while holding a valid ticket constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A. The court held that the death was an untoward incident and the railway is strictly liable to pay compensation, as the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the incident was not due to any self-inflicted injury or negligence. (Paras 1-13) B) Railway Law - Burden of Proof - Section 124A, Railways Act, 1989 - The court examined the burden of proof on the railway to show that the incident falls within the exceptions under Section 124A. The court held that the railway failed to discharge its burden to prove that the death was due to suicide or self-inflicted injury, and therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation. (Paras 7-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the deceased was an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the appellant is entitled to compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur is set aside. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization. The respondent is directed to pay the compensation within three months.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- Bona fide passenger
- Strict liability
- Railway accident
- Compensation
- Burden of proof
- Section 124A Railways Act
- 1989
- Section 123 Railways Act
