Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Ratta wd/o Subhash Meshram, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of her son, Ravindra Subhash Meshram, who died on 14.05.2018 while traveling by Train No.22512, Kamakhya Express from Gondia to Kamptee. Ravindra had a valid journey ticket No.49882389. Due to overcrowding, he was standing near the door and fell from the running train at Tumsar Road railway station yard due to a sudden jerk, dying on the spot. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that Ratta failed to prove that Ravindra was a bonafide passenger and that the death was due to an untoward incident. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the Tribunal erred in its findings. The Court noted that Ravindra possessed a valid ticket, making him a bonafide passenger. The fall from the train due to a sudden jerk in an overcrowded compartment squarely falls within the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court emphasized that under Section 124-A, the Railways are strictly liable for compensation unless they prove an exception, which they failed to do. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the Railways to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Fall from Train - Section 123(c)(2) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 - The death of a passenger who fell from an overcrowded train due to a sudden jerk is an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Railways are strictly liable to pay compensation under Section 124-A unless the incident falls within the exceptions. The claimant need only prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died in an untoward incident; the burden then shifts to the Railways to prove an exception. (Paras 1-10)
B) Railways Act - Bonafide Passenger - Valid Ticket - Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 - The deceased was a bonafide passenger as he possessed a valid journey ticket No.49882389 dated 14.05.2018. The Tribunal erred in holding that the claimant failed to prove bonafide passenger status. (Paras 2-6)
C) Railways Act - Burden of Proof - Strict Liability - Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 - Once the claimant establishes that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died in an untoward incident, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove that the case falls within the exceptions under Section 124-A. The Railways failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of Ravindra Subhash Meshram due to a fall from an overcrowded train caused by a sudden jerk constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling his mother Ratta to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- bonafide passenger
- strict liability
- burden of proof
- sudden jerk
- fall from train
- overcrowded train
- Section 124-A Railways Act
- Section 123(c)(2) Railways Act
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 Section 23
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (05) 50
First Appeal No.116 of 2022
Ms. S.G. Barbate for the Appellant, Shri. S.A. Chaudhari for the Respondent
Smt. Ratta wd/o Subhash Meshram
The Union of India, through its General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, C.G.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against dismissal of claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 for death of a passenger in an untoward incident.
Remedy Sought
Compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 for the death of her son Ravindra.
Filing Reason
Death of Ravindra Subhash Meshram due to fall from an overcrowded train caused by a sudden jerk.
Previous Decisions
The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on 08.02.2021, holding that the claimant failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the death was due to an untoward incident.
Issues
Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?
Whether the death of Ravindra due to fall from train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that Ravindra had a valid journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger; his death due to fall from train due to sudden jerk is an untoward incident; Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim.
Respondent argued that the claimant failed to prove bonafide passenger status and that the death was due to an untoward incident.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railways are strictly liable to pay compensation for death or injury to a bonafide passenger in an untoward incident, unless the incident falls within the exceptions. The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died in an untoward incident; thereafter, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove an exception. A fall from an overcrowded train due to a sudden jerk constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2).
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant – Smt. Ratta Subhash Meshram has preferred this appeal u/s.23 of the Railways Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the Judgment dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Member, Railway Claim Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
Ratta’s son – Ravindra Subhash Meshram was traveling on 14.05.2018 by Train No.22512, Kamakhya Express from Gondia to Kamptee as a bonafide passenger on valid journey ticket No.49882389 dated 14.05.2018.
While traveling in general compartment, Ravindra was standing near the door of the said train as the train was over-crowded. Due to heavy rush and sudden jerk, Ravindra lost his balance and fell down from the running train at Tumsar Road railway station yard, Line No.4 and died on the spot.
The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has dismissed the claim application of Ratta for compensation.
Learned counsel for Ratta, assailing the impugned judgment, contends that Ravindra had a valid journey ticket and therefore, the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that Ravindra was not a bonafide passenger.
She further submitted that the death of Ravindra was on account of fall from the train due to sudden jerk and hence Ravindra is entitled to compensation as Ravindra died in an incident which can be termed as an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of clause (c)(2) of Section 123 of the Railways Act.
According to her, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that Ratta was not able to discharge her burden that Ravindra died on account of untoward incident.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 08.02.2021. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present First Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The appeal was reserved on 05.05.2022 and pronounced on 13.05.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Railways Act, 1989: Section 123(c)(2), Section 124-A
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987: Section 23
