Case Note & Summary
The appellants, being the widow, son, and mother of the deceased Manohar Gajbhiye, filed a claim under the Railways Act, 1989 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, seeking compensation for his death. The deceased had travelled from Gondia to Rewral on a valid journey ticket in a passenger train. After alighting at Rewral station, as there was no foot overbridge, he was walking along the railway track with head loads when he was hit by Train No. 18421 passing through Rewral in the UP direction. The Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident as he had already deboarded, and that his death was due to his own negligent act of walking on the track, thus not an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The appellants challenged this decision before the High Court. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the accident were correct, but erred in law. The Court noted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger until he safely exited the station, and the absence of a foot overbridge forced him to walk on the track. The Court held that the incident squarely falls within the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2), and the railway is strictly liable under Section 124-A to pay compensation. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the respondent to pay compensation to the appellants as per the schedule under the Railways Act, with interest.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Bonafide Passenger - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c)(2) and Section 124-A - The deceased, a bonafide passenger holding a valid ticket, alighted at Rewral station and while walking on the track due to absence of foot overbridge, was hit by another train. The Tribunal erred in holding that he ceased to be a bonafide passenger after alighting. The High Court held that the deceased remained a bonafide passenger as he was in the process of exiting the station, and the incident was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2). The railway's failure to provide a foot overbridge contributed to the accident. (Paras 2-5) B) Railways Act - Compensation - Strict Liability - Section 124-A - The railway is strictly liable to pay compensation for death or injury in an untoward incident, regardless of negligence. The Tribunal's finding of negligence on the part of the deceased was irrelevant. The High Court allowed the appeal and directed payment of compensation as per the schedule. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased, who after alighting from a train on a valid ticket, was walking on the railway track due to absence of foot overbridge and was hit by another train, is a 'bonafide passenger' and whether the incident is an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the claimants to compensation under Section 124-A.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 06/02/2019, and directed the respondent to pay compensation to the appellants as per the schedule under the Railways Act, 1989, with interest.
Law Points
- Bonafide passenger
- untoward incident
- strict liability
- negligence of railway
- compensation under Section 124-A
- Railways Act
- 1989
