Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the mother of the deceased, Dinesh, challenging the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, which rejected her claim for compensation. The deceased had purchased a journey ticket on 24.05.2013 and boarded the Puri-Ahmedabad Express at Gondia to travel to Nagpur. Due to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, he lost his balance and fell from the running train near the starter signal of Kanhan railway station, sustaining fatal head injuries. The appellant claimed that the death was an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, 1989. The Railway opposed the claim, contending that the deceased was negligent and was sitting on the footboard, which is a criminal offence, and that the injury was self-inflicted. The Tribunal dismissed the claim. On appeal, the High Court framed two issues: whether the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket and whether the death was an untoward incident. The court noted that the journey ticket was recovered from the deceased's pocket during the inquest panchanama, and the mother's testimony corroborated the purchase of the ticket. The court held that the Railway's defence of negligence is not maintainable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which imposes strict liability for untoward incidents. The exceptions of self-inflicted injury or suicide must be proved by the Railway, which it failed to do. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Railway to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization.
Headnote
A) Railway Law - Untoward Incident - Strict Liability - Section 124-A Railways Act, 1989 - The court held that the death of a passenger who fell from a running train due to a sudden jerk constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The defence of negligence or contributory negligence is not available to the Railway under Section 124-A, which imposes strict liability. The claimant need only prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the death occurred in an untoward incident. (Paras 7-10) B) Railway Law - Bona Fide Passenger - Valid Ticket - Burden of Proof - Section 124-A Railways Act, 1989 - The court found that the recovery of a journey ticket from the deceased's pocket at the time of inquest panchanama, coupled with the testimony of the mother, sufficiently proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket. The Railway's failure to produce any evidence to the contrary meant the burden was discharged. (Paras 7-9) C) Railway Law - Negligence - Self-Inflicted Injury - Exception - Section 124-A Railways Act, 1989 - The court rejected the Railway's contention that the deceased was sitting on the footboard and that the injury was self-inflicted. It held that even if the deceased was negligent, such negligence does not fall within the exceptions of 'self-inflicted injury' or 'suicide' under Section 124-A. The Railway must prove these exceptions, which it failed to do. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the deceased was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the defence of negligence or contributory negligence is available to the Railway.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 16.05.2016 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, set aside. Respondent-Railway directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- strict liability
- negligence not a defence
- valid ticket
- burden of proof
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 Section 23
- Railways Act 1989 Section 124-A
- Railways Act 1989 Section 123(c)(2)
