Case Note & Summary
The appellants, widow and two major sons of Shankarlal Giri, filed a claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, alleging that the deceased died due to falling from an overcrowded local train between Bhandup and Kanjurmarg stations while holding a valid second class railway ticket. The respondent, Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway, contended that the deceased was crossing the railway track and was hit by a train, and that he was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was found on his person or near the scene. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, disbelieving the witnesses and holding that there was no eye witness and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence including the D.R.M. report, postmortem report, inquest panchanama, and spot panchanama, which indicated that the deceased died due to a train accident. The court noted that the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 includes the fall of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. The court held that the railway administration is strictly liable under Section 124A to pay compensation for death or injury in an untoward incident, regardless of negligence. The court further held that the burden to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger lies on the railway, and the railway failed to discharge that burden. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed payment of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c) and Section 124A - Compensation - Death due to fall from overcrowded train - The deceased fell from an overcrowded local train between Bhandup and Kanjurmarg stations, resulting in amputation of both legs and death. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on grounds of no eye witness and absence of ticket. The High Court reversed, holding that the incident squarely falls within the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the railway administration is strictly liable under Section 124A to pay compensation regardless of negligence. The absence of a ticket does not automatically disentitle the claim if the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The burden to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger lies on the railway. (Paras 1-8) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Bona Fide Passenger - The Tribunal erred in relying on the absence of a ticket and lack of eye witness. The D.R.M. report, postmortem report, inquest panchanama, and spot panchanama indicated that the deceased died due to train accident. The railway failed to discharge its burden to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The court held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the deceased due to falling from an overcrowded train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the dependants to compensation, and whether the absence of a valid ticket or eye witness defeats the claim.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 30th June, 2017 is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till realization.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- burden of proof
- strict liability
- bona fide passenger
- Railways Act 1989
- Section 123(c)
- Section 124A
- Section 147
- compensation
- fall from train
- overcrowded train
- no eye witness
- D.R.M. report
- postmortem report
- inquest panchanama
- spot panchanama
- presumption of death in railway accident
- strict liability of railway administration
