Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Laxman Ganesh Kanhojia, was a bona fide passenger travelling on 14.02.2018 by Train No. 11040 Up Maharashtra Express from Bhandara to Nagpur. He claimed that while standing near the lavatory, due to a sudden jerk near D-Cabin, Mominpura area at Nagpur Railway Station, he fell from the running train and suffered injuries resulting in amputation of his leg. He was admitted to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur, where he was diagnosed with railway track injury below the knee amputation, but closure was done above the knee on 08.03.2014. The appellant filed a claim application under the Railways Act, 1989 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, which was rejected by judgment and order dated 08.02.2018 in Claim Application No. OA (IIu)/NGP/2015/2007. The Tribunal held that the appellant voluntarily alighted from the train based on his statement to the GRP dated 14.02.2014, and thus the incident was not an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court observed that the appellant was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket, which was not disputed. The statement to GRP was recorded soon after the incident when the appellant was in shock and under treatment. The Court held that the statement was not conclusive and the burden of proving the defence of self-inflicted injury lay on the Railways, which they failed to discharge. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Railways 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 - Untoward Incident - Bona Fide Passenger - Section 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 - The appellant, a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket, fell from a running train due to a sudden jerk and suffered amputation of his leg. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant voluntarily alighted from the train based on his statement to GRP. The High Court held that the statement was not conclusive and the appellant was a bona fide passenger, and the incident fell within the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c). The burden of proof on the Railways to establish the defence of self-inflicted injury was not discharged. (Paras 1-10) B) Railways Act - Defence of Self-Inflicted Injury - Burden of Proof - Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 - The Railways raised the defence that the appellant voluntarily alighted from the train, which would be an act of self-inflicted injury. The High Court held that the burden of proving such a defence lies on the Railways, and mere statement to GRP without corroboration is insufficient. The Tribunal erred in shifting the burden on the appellant. (Paras 7-10) C) Evidence - Statement to GRP - Credibility - The appellant's statement to GRP that he alighted from the running train was recorded soon after the incident when he was in shock and under treatment. The High Court held that such a statement cannot be the sole basis to deny compensation, especially when the appellant was a bona fide passenger and the incident was an accident. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a bona fide passenger, suffered an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim on the ground that the appellant voluntarily alighted from the train.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 08.02.2018, and directed the respondent 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
- Bona fide passenger
- Untoward incident
- Burden of proof
- Railways Act 1989
- Section 124A
- Section 123(c)
- Strict liability
- Defence of self-inflicted injury
- Statement to GRP
- Credibility of evidence
