Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ankush Ramaji Amzare, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a railway accident. On 17/05/2014, he was travelling from Warora to Wardha by Balharshah Passenger train. Due to heavy crowd, he was sitting near the door. When the train reached Bhugaon Railway Station, the driver applied sudden brakes, causing a jerk that made him fall from the train. His both legs were cut off and subsequently amputated. The appellant claimed that he was a bonafide passenger and that the incident was an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling him to compensation. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on two grounds: first, that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger because he did not have a journey ticket; second, that he was under the influence of liquor and the accident occurred due to his own fault, falling under the exception in Section 124-A(d) of the Railways Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal before the High Court. The High Court heard the counsel for the appellant, who argued that the absence of a ticket should not be fatal to the claim, citing the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi. She also argued that there was no evidence of intoxication, as no blood test report was produced, and relied on the Madras High Court decision in Chandru v. Multi Speciality Lab Services Pvt. Ltd. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger merely because no ticket was found. The court noted that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a person travelling in a train is presumed to be a bonafide passenger. Regarding intoxication, the court held that there was no blood test report or other evidence to prove that the appellant was under the influence of liquor. The burden to prove the exception under Section 124-A(d) lies on the railway, and mere suspicion is not sufficient. The court concluded that the incident was an untoward incident under Section 123(c) and that the appellant was entitled to compensation. The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for determination of the quantum of compensation.
Headnote
A) Railway Law - Bonafide Passenger - Presumption of Being a Bonafide Passenger - Section 124-A, Railways Act, 1989 - The appellant fell from a train and suffered amputation of both legs. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger as he had no ticket. The High Court held that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a person travelling in a train is presumed to be a bonafide passenger, and the absence of a ticket does not automatically negate the claim. (Paras 1-2, 7-8) B) Railway Law - Untoward Incident - Exception under Section 124-A(d) - Intoxication - Burden of Proof - Section 124-A, Railways Act, 1989 - The Tribunal held that the appellant was under the influence of liquor and the accident was due to his own fault. The High Court held that there was no blood test report or other evidence to prove intoxication. The burden to prove the exception under Section 124-A(d) lies on the railway, and mere suspicion is not enough. (Paras 2, 5, 7-8) C) Railway Law - Compensation - Amputation of Both Legs - Entitlement to Compensation - Section 124-A, Railways Act, 1989 - The appellant suffered amputation of both legs due to falling from a train. The High Court held that the incident was an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, and the appellant is entitled to compensation. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside. (Paras 1, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was a bonafide passenger and whether the accident was due to his own fault or intoxication, disentitling him to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal set aside. Case remanded to Tribunal for determination of quantum of compensation.
Law Points
- Bonafide passenger presumption
- Untoward incident definition
- Exception under Section 124-A(d) requires proof of intoxication
- Burden of proof on railway
