Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, which rejected the claim of the appellants (legal heirs of deceased Nanda Giridhar Deshbhratar) for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. The deceased, a 61-year-old lady, was travelling with her friend Indubai Gajbhiye from Sausar to Khaperkheda on 02.10.2014, holding a valid second class ordinary ticket. Due to overcrowding, she was standing at the door of the train. When the train crossed Railway Bridge No. 78 near Lodhikheda, a sudden jerk caused her to fall from the running train, resulting in her death. The appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The Railway contested the claim, alleging that the deceased jumped from the train and committed suicide, relying on the testimony of Guard Rajkumar Rajak. The Tribunal held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger but concluded that she jumped and committed suicide, thereby rejecting the claim under Section 124A(a) of the Act. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The court noted that the guard's statement was based on information from an unnamed passenger, which was hearsay and uncorroborated. The guard could not name the informant, and there was no other evidence to support the suicide theory. The court observed that there was no reason for the lady to commit suicide. The court held that the Railway failed to discharge its burden of proving the defence under Section 124A(a). Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and the claim petition was allowed. The appellants were held entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Accidental Death - Section 124A(a) - Suicide Defence - The Railway failed to prove that the deceased jumped from the train and committed suicide, as the sole witness (Guard) gave hearsay evidence without naming the informant. The court held that the defence under Section 124A(a) was not established, and the death was due to an accidental fall from an overcrowded train. (Paras 2-3) B) Evidence - Hearsay - Uncorroborated Testimony - The guard's statement that a passenger informed him about the deceased jumping is inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to discharge the burden of proof on the Railway. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased died by suicide or accidental fall, and whether the Railway successfully proved the defence under Section 124A(a) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in case no. OA(IIu)/NGP/2015/0102 is set aside. The claim petition is allowed. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on railway to prove suicide
- Section 124A(a) Railways Act 1989
- Bonafide passenger presumption
- Uncorroborated hearsay evidence insufficient
