Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the dependants of the deceased Sandesh Kale, who died in a railway accident on 20/09/2012. The appellants, being the widow and minor children of the deceased, challenged the order dated 17/01/2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, which dismissed their claim application. The deceased was travelling from Majari to Warora by train after purchasing a valid railway ticket. Due to heavy rush, he was standing near the door of the coach and fell down from the running train when it reached Warora Railway Station. He sustained injuries and died during treatment at a hospital in Chandrapur. The respondent-Railway resisted the claim, contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the incident was not an untoward incident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased tried to alight from a running train before its scheduled halt, as his residence was behind the railway station. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket and was a bonafide passenger. The court noted that the Railway failed to produce any evidence to rebut the presumption of bonafide passenger status. The court held that the death of the deceased due to falling from the train due to heavy rush was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway was liable to pay compensation under Section 124A. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the Railway to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act, 1989 - Untoward Incident - Bonafide Passenger - Section 124A - Compensation - The appeal challenged the dismissal of a claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the incident was not untoward. The High Court held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger as he had purchased a valid ticket, and his fall from the train due to heavy rush constituted an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization. (Paras 2-10) B) Railways Act, 1989 - Burden of Proof - Bonafide Passenger - Section 124A - The court held that the burden to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railway. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the deceased must be presumed to be a bonafide passenger. The court relied on the principle that losing a ticket in an accident is possible and does not negate bonafide status. (Paras 6-9) C) Railways Act, 1989 - Strict Liability - Untoward Incident - Section 124A - The court reiterated that the liability of the Railway under Section 124A is strict and no fault is required to be proved. The death of a passenger due to falling from a train due to rush is an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether his death was an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the dependants to compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17/01/2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur is set aside. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the appellants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
Law Points
- Bonafide passenger
- Untoward incident
- Strict liability
- Burden of proof
- Presumption of bonafide passenger
- Section 124A Railways Act
- 1989
- Section 123(c) Railways Act
