Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vilash s/o Rajendra Meshram, filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, seeking compensation for injuries sustained on 23.01.2010 while travelling from Gondia to Bhandara by train no. 8030 Howrah-Kurla Express. He had purchased a ticket and boarded the general compartment. Due to rush and jerk, he fell from the running train, sustaining injuries to both legs, resulting in amputation of his left leg below the knee and permanent disability. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the appellant was not a valid ticket holder but a fruit vendor without a license, and that the incident was not an untoward incident. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court heard arguments from counsel for both sides. The appellant's counsel relied on the judgment in First Appeal No. 305 of 2010 (Union of India vs. Dhurpatabai) and Savitra Devi vs. Union of India, arguing that even if the appellant was a vendor without license, the burden shifts to the Railway to prove its defence, and the Railway failed to examine any witness. The Railway did not discharge its burden. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Railway to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124A - Untoward Incident - Burden of Proof - The appellant, a fruit vendor without a license, fell from a running train due to rush and jerk, sustaining injuries leading to amputation of left leg below knee. The Tribunal rejected the claim holding he was not a bona fide passenger. The High Court held that even if he was a vendor without license, the burden shifts to the Railway to prove the defence, and the Railway failed to examine any witness or discharge the burden. The appellant is entitled to compensation for permanent disability. (Paras 1-4) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of Proof - Shifting of Burden - The Railway did not examine any witness to support its investigation report. The statement recorded by GRP was rejected. The Court relied on First Appeal No. 305 of 2010 (Union of India vs. Dhurpatabai) and Savitra Devi vs. Union of India to hold that the Railway must discharge its burden by leading evidence. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a vendor without a valid railway ticket, is entitled to compensation for injuries sustained from falling from a train due to rush and jerk, and whether the Railway discharged its burden of proof.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 29.03.2012 set aside. Respondent/Union of India directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
Law Points
- Burden of proof shifts to railway to disprove untoward incident
- Vendor without license is a passenger
- Untoward incident includes fall from train due to rush and jerk
- Permanent disability entitles compensation
