Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the original applicants, the widow and minor children of Jagannath Vibhute, challenging the judgment and award dated 18th July 2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in Claim Application No. OA(llu)/NGP/2013/0162. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death was due to an accidental fall from a train. The deceased, Jagannath Vibhute, was a 45-year-old man who died on 25th July 2013 when he fell from a running train near Parbhani railway station. The claimants alleged that he was traveling from Parbhani to Purna with a valid ticket, and due to sudden jerk and overcrowding, he fell from the train and died. The respondent, Union of India through South Central Railway, denied the claim, contending that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death was not due to any railway accident. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, held that the sole witness, the brother of the deceased, was untruthful and that the claimants failed to prove the accidental fall. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket, which was produced on record. The court held that the Tribunal erred in discarding the entire evidence of the witness merely because he was found untruthful on some aspects. The court further held that once the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death occurred due to a fall from a train, the railway administration is strictly liable under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124A - Strict Liability - Accidental Falling - The court held that once a person is a bona fide passenger and dies in a railway accident, the railway administration is strictly liable to pay compensation, and the burden to prove any exception lies on the railway. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim on the ground that the claimants failed to prove 'accidental falling' when the death occurred due to fall from a train. (Paras 10-15) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Untruthful Witness - The court held that even if a witness is found to be untruthful on some aspects, the entire evidence need not be discarded; the court can separate the grain from the chaff. The Tribunal's finding that the sole witness was untruthful and therefore the claim must fail was erroneous. (Paras 12-13) C) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124A - Bona Fide Passenger - The court held that the possession of a valid ticket is sufficient to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal's finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger due to lack of ticket was perverse when the ticket was produced and proved. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether his death was due to an accidental fall from a train, entitling the claimants to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 18th July 2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in Claim Application No. OA(llu)/NGP/2013/0162 is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 to the appellants along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till realization.
Law Points
- Bona fide passenger
- accidental falling
- strict liability
- Railways Act 1989 Section 124A
- burden of proof
- untruthful evidence
- compensation
