Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from the dismissal of a claim petition by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in OA No. II U 162/2012 dated 14.12.2016. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased Fakkirappa Adakavu, sought compensation for his death in a railway accident. The deceased, after completing coolie work at Hubli Railway Station on 28.07.2012, purchased a journey ticket (No. E-33057509 for Rs.6) to travel from Hubli to Annigeri. He boarded a train along with another person, but fell from the train and died. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The High Court of Karnataka, in this appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, examined the evidence. The court noted that the deceased had a valid ticket and was traveling in the train, making him a 'deemed passenger' under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989. The court held that the Railway Administration is strictly liable under Section 124A of the Act for the death of a passenger in a railway accident, unless it proves that the death was due to the passenger's own negligence or a criminal act. The Railway failed to adduce any evidence to rebut this presumption. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal, directing the Railway to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.
Headnote
A) Railway Law - Deemed Passenger - Section 123, 124A Railways Act, 1989 - The deceased, after completing coolie work, purchased a journey ticket and boarded a train. He fell from the train and died. The Tribunal dismissed the claim holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The High Court held that the deceased was a 'deemed passenger' as he had a valid ticket and was traveling in the train. The Railway Administration is strictly liable under Section 124A unless it proves that the death was due to the passenger's own negligence or a criminal act. (Paras 1-10) B) Railway Law - Strict Liability - Section 124A Railways Act, 1989 - The provision imposes strict liability on the Railway Administration for death or injury to a passenger in a railway accident. The burden is on the Railway to prove that the accident was not due to its negligence or that it was caused by the passenger's own negligence or a criminal act. In this case, the Railway failed to discharge that burden. (Paras 5-10) C) Railway Law - Rebuttable Presumption - Section 124A Railways Act, 1989 - Once the claimant establishes that the deceased was a passenger and died in a railway accident, a presumption arises that the accident was due to the Railway's negligence. The Railway can rebut this presumption by showing that the death was due to the passenger's own negligence or a criminal act. The Tribunal erred in placing the burden on the claimants. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased was a 'passenger' within the meaning of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Act for the death of the deceased who fell from a train.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in OA No. II U 162/2012 is set aside. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.
Law Points
- Deemed passenger
- bona fide passenger
- strict liability
- rebuttable presumption
- negligence
- contributory negligence
- burden of proof
- Section 124A Railways Act
- 1989
- Section 123 Railways Act
