Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Union of India, Western Railway, against a judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, which awarded compensation to the respondent, Khursheedbi, the mother of the deceased Sheikh Riyaz. The deceased, along with a companion (AW-2), purchased two railway tickets and boarded the Bhusawal-Surat Passenger Train on March 1, 2002. While the train was between Pardhi and Chawalkheda stations, some persons attacked them, brutally assaulted the deceased, and threw him out of the train near Km No. 281/10-11. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. The respondent filed a claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation for the untoward incident. The Railway opposed the claim, arguing that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no ticket was recovered at the scene, and that the death was due to a quarrel or criminal act, thus falling under the exception in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal framed four issues and decided all in favor of the respondent, holding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the incident was an untoward incident. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence, including the testimony of AW-2 and the ticket purchase, and found that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The Court held that the Railway failed to prove that the death was due to the deceased's own criminal act, as there was no evidence of criminal intent. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's award of compensation.
Headnote
A) Railway Law - Untoward Incident - Bonafide Passenger - Compensation - The deceased, a bonafide passenger holding a valid ticket, was assaulted and thrown out of a moving train, resulting in death. The Railway contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the death was due to his own criminal act. The Tribunal allowed the claim. On appeal, the High Court held that the evidence of ticket purchase and eyewitness testimony established the deceased as a bonafide passenger. The incident fell within the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway was liable under Section 124A. The exception for criminal act did not apply as there was no evidence of criminal intent by the deceased. (Paras 2-10)
B) Railway Law - Burden of Proof - Criminal Act Exception - The Railway failed to discharge its burden to prove that the death was due to the deceased's own criminal act. The mere fact that the deceased was involved in a quarrel does not constitute a criminal act under Section 124A proviso. The Railway must prove that the deceased intended to commit a crime. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the deceased was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the Railway is liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 17.02.2009, which awarded compensation to the respondent.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- bonafide passenger
- strict liability
- burden of proof
- criminal act exception
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act
- 1987
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 166
First Appeal No. 1171 of 2010
Mr N. P. Lambat for appellant, Mr Nagsen R. Mankar for respondent
The Union of India, Western Railway, Through its General Manager, Mumbai
Khursheedbi W/o. Sk. Faiyaz
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for death in untoward incident.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (Railway) sought to set aside the Tribunal's order awarding compensation to the respondent.
Filing Reason
The Railway challenged the Tribunal's finding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the death was an untoward incident, arguing that the death was due to the deceased's own criminal act.
Previous Decisions
The Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, by judgment dated 17.02.2009, allowed the claim and awarded compensation.
Issues
Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident?
Whether the death of the deceased was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?
Whether the Railway is liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?
Whether the death falls under the exception of 'criminal act' of the deceased?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (Railway): The deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no ticket was recovered; the death was due to a quarrel or criminal act, thus no liability.
Respondent: The deceased purchased a ticket and was a bonafide passenger; the death was an untoward incident; the Railway is liable to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The deceased was a bonafide passenger as evidenced by ticket purchase and eyewitness testimony. The incident of being assaulted and thrown out of a moving train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Railway is strictly liable under Section 124A unless the death was due to the deceased's own criminal act. The Railway failed to prove that the deceased intended to commit a criminal act; mere involvement in a quarrel does not suffice. Therefore, the exception does not apply, and compensation is payable.
Judgment Excerpts
In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenge is to the judgment and order dated 17.02.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, at Nagpur whereby the learned Member of the Tribunal allowed the claim filed by the respondent under Section 16 of the Act of 1987 and awarded the compensation.
The deceased purchased two railway tickets for Rs.27/- each, one for himself and another for AW-2.
The deceased was brutally assaulted and thrown out of the train near Km No.281/10-11 between Dharangaon and Chawalkheda railway station.
The appellant-Railway filed reply and opposed the claim. It was contended that the deceased was not bonafide passenger. Railway ticket was not recovered at the time of the inquest panchanama/spot panchanama.
Learned Member of the Tribunal framed as many as four issues and answered all the issues in favour of the respondent.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation for the death of her son in an untoward incident. The Tribunal allowed the claim on 17.02.2009. The appellant (Railway) filed the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the Tribunal's order.
Acts & Sections
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987: Section 16, Section 23
- Railways Act, 1989: Section 123(c), Section 124A
