Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Railway Accident Claim — Deemed Untoward Incident Under Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989. Bona Fide Passenger Status Established Through Circumstantial Evidence Despite Lost Ticket.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arises from a judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, dated 26.08.2013, dismissing the claim for compensation filed by the appellants, who are the wife, daughter, and son of the deceased Shrinivas Asawa. The appellants contended that on 07.12.2007, the deceased was travelling from Bhokar to Adilabad by the Nandigram Express with a valid journey ticket purchased by his companion Kishan Chintakute. The deceased accidentally fell from the running train at Bhokar railway station and died due to injuries sustained. The ticket was lost in the accident. The Railway filed a written statement denying the claim, asserting that the death was not an untoward incident, that the deceased was negligent and failed to take proper care, amounting to self-inflicted injury, and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was found on his person. The Tribunal framed four issues and dismissed the claim, recording findings against the appellants. In appeal before the High Court, the court framed three points for determination: whether the deceased died in an untoward incident, whether he was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket, and what order. The appellants' counsel argued that the evidence of AW2 (Kishan Chintakute) proved the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The court held that the death due to accidental fall from a running train is an untoward incident under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway is strictly liable unless exceptions apply. The court found that the evidence of AW2, though not corroborated by documentary evidence, was sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The loss of the ticket in the accident does not negate the claim. The court rejected the Railway's defence of negligence, holding that mere negligence does not fall within the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Railway to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization.

Headnote

A) Railway Law - Untoward Incident - Section 124A Railways Act, 1989 - Strict Liability - The court held that the death of a passenger who accidentally fell from a running train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Railway is strictly liable to pay compensation unless the incident falls within the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A. (Paras 6-10)

B) Railway Law - Bona Fide Passenger - Burden of Proof - Section 124A Railways Act, 1989 - The court held that the burden to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger lies on the claimant, but can be discharged through circumstantial evidence such as the presence of a companion who purchased the ticket, the deceased's presence at the railway station, and the absence of any reason to travel without a ticket. The loss of the ticket in the accident does not defeat the claim. (Paras 7-9)

C) Railway Law - Negligence of Victim - Exception to Liability - Section 124A proviso Railways Act, 1989 - The court held that mere negligence or failure to take proper care by the victim does not fall within the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A. The exceptions are limited to suicide, self-inflicted injury, and acts of war or civil commotion. The Railway's defence that the deceased was negligent was rejected. (Para 10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident and whether he was a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, is set aside. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization.

Law Points

  • Untoward incident
  • bona fide passenger
  • strict liability
  • burden of proof
  • circumstantial evidence
  • lost ticket
  • Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 Section 23
  • Railways Act 1989 Section 124A
  • Railways Act 1989 Section 124A proviso
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 162

First Appeal No. 147 of 2014

2023-09-26

G. A. Sanap, J.

2023:BHC-NAG:14682

Mr. A. B. Deshpande (holding for Mr. Vilas Deshpande) for appellants, Ms. Neeraja Choube for respondent

Smt. Nirmala Shrinivas Asawa, Mrs. Anuradha Nareshkumar Jaju, Mr. Venkatesh Srinivas Asawa

Union of India, Through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal of claim for compensation under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought compensation for the death of Shrinivas Asawa in an untoward incident.

Filing Reason

The deceased accidentally fell from a running train and died; the Railway denied liability.

Previous Decisions

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, dismissed the claim application on 26.08.2013.

Issues

Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident? Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket purchased by his companion, and his accidental fall from the train constitutes an untoward incident. Respondent argued that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was found, and his death was due to his own negligence, amounting to self-inflicted injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The death of a passenger due to accidental fall from a running train is an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway is strictly liable to pay compensation. The burden to prove bona fide passenger status can be discharged by circumstantial evidence, and loss of ticket does not defeat the claim. Mere negligence of the victim does not fall within the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A.

Judgment Excerpts

In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim filed by the appellants for compensation. The court held that the death due to accidental fall from a running train is an untoward incident under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway is strictly liable unless exceptions apply.

Procedural History

The appellants filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 26.08.2013. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.

Acts & Sections

  • Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987: Section 23
  • Railways Act, 1989: Section 124A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Railway Accident Claim — Deemed Untoward Incident Under Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989. Bona Fide Passenger Status Established Through Circumstantial Evidence Despite Lost Ticket.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Remand Order in Adverse Possession Suit — Trial Court Decree Restored. First Appellate Court Exceeded Jurisdiction by Remanding Suit for Filing Written Statement Despite Proper Procedure Being Followed.