Case Note & Summary
The appellants, being the wife and children of the deceased Vithal Harishchandra Kharade, filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, under Section 124 of the Railways Act, seeking compensation for his death. The deceased was allegedly travelling from Veer to Pen railway station by Madgaon-Diva KR6 UP Train on 3rd October 2018. When the train reached near Pen Railway station, he was forcefully pushed by another passenger and accidentally fell from the train, sustaining serious injuries and subsequently dying. The appellants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death was caused by an untoward incident. The respondent, Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway, denied these claims, asserting that the deceased had come under the train while crossing the track. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the deceased was not holding a valid train ticket and was not a bona fide passenger, and that he was knocked down while crossing the track. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the DRM report which stated that the deceased fell from the train. The court noted that the burden of proof lies on the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the incident was not an untoward incident. The court found that the Railways failed to discharge this burden. The court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death was an untoward incident under Section 124A of the Railways Act. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Bona Fide Passenger - Untoward Incident - Section 124A, Railways Act, 1989 - The court considered whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether his death was an untoward incident. The DRM report indicated the deceased fell from a train, and the court held that the absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status if supported by other evidence. The court allowed the appeal and granted compensation. (Paras 1-10) B) Railways Act - Burden of Proof - Section 124A, Railways Act, 1989 - The burden is on the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the incident was not an untoward incident. The court found that the Railways failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 5-7) C) Railways Act - DRM Report - Evidentiary Value - Section 124A, Railways Act, 1989 - The DRM report is a crucial piece of evidence. In this case, the DRM report stated that the deceased fell from the train, which supports the claim of an untoward incident. The court relied on this report. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether his death was caused by an untoward incident under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 23rd December 2022 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 petition until realization.
Law Points
- Bona fide passenger
- Untoward incident
- Burden of proof
- Railways Act
- 1989
- Section 124A
- Section 124
- DRM report
- Circumstantial evidence
- Compensation
