Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rekha Suryvanshi, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, seeking compensation for injuries sustained while alighting from a train. On 25 May 2014, she was travelling with her husband and a friend from Itwari to Tumsar on Passenger Train No. 58206 with a valid ticket. Due to heavy rush, they could not alight on the platform side and decided to alight on the offside. Her husband alighted first, and while she was alighting, she fell from the running train, and both her legs came under the wheels, resulting in amputation. The Tribunal dismissed her claim, holding that she attempted to alight from the offside of a running train, which was an act of self-inflicted injury falling under the exception to Section 124A of the Railways Act. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel relied on decisions including Shilpa v. Union of India, Union of India v. Kamal, and Jameela v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that even if a passenger falls due to own negligence, it is not a criminal act under the proviso to Section 124A. The respondent argued that the injuries were self-inflicted. The High Court analyzed Section 124A, which imposes strict liability on the railway for injuries to passengers, with an exception only if the injury is due to a criminal act of the passenger. The court held that the appellant's act of alighting from the offside due to rush, even if negligent, did not constitute a criminal act. The burden was on the railway to prove a criminal act, which they failed to do. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the railway to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Compensation for Injuries - Section 124A - Strict Liability - The appellant sustained injuries while alighting from a running train due to heavy rush. The Tribunal dismissed the claim holding it was self-inflicted. The High Court reversed, relying on Jameela v. Union of India, holding that negligence is not a criminal act under the proviso to Section 124A. The railway is liable for compensation. (Paras 2-6) B) Railways Act - Criminal Act - Proviso to Section 124A - Interpretation - The proviso excludes compensation only if the injury is due to a criminal act of the passenger. Falling from a train due to own negligence, even if alighting from offside, does not amount to a criminal act. The burden is on the railway to prove a criminal act. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's act of alighting from the offside of a running train due to heavy rush constitutes a criminal act under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby disentitling her to compensation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The respondent-Union of India is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization.
Law Points
- Strict liability of railways under Section 124A
- Exception for criminal acts does not include negligence
- Burden on railway to prove criminal act
