Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a claim for compensation filed by the respondents (claimants), the widow and minor children of the deceased Vinod Bhurewar, who died in an incident while traveling by train. The Union of India, as the appellant railway, challenged the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, dated 21-10-2008, which awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lakh with 6% interest per annum to the claimants. The core issue was whether the deceased's death was due to self-inflicted injuries, which would fall under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and thus disentitle the claimants to compensation. The Tribunal had found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a ticket and that there was no sufficient evidence to bring the case within the exceptions of Section 124A. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008 ACJ 1895), held that it makes no difference whether the deceased was inside the train or trying to get in when he fell. The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the death was an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Act. Since the railway failed to prove the exception, the appeal was dismissed. The court also noted that the entire compensation amount had been deposited and directed that it be governed by the Tribunal's order regarding investment. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Bona Fide Passenger - Section 124A, 123(c) Railways Act, 1989 - The deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket; his death occurred due to an untoward incident while boarding/alighting. The Railway failed to prove that the death was due to self-inflicted injury. The Tribunal's finding that the case is not covered by the exceptions under Section 124A was upheld. (Paras 3-4)
B) Railways Act - Compensation - Quantum - Section 124A Railways Act, 1989 read with Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 - The claimant is entitled to Rs. 4 lakh compensation with 6% interest per annum as per the Schedule. The amount deposited in court shall be governed by the Tribunal's order. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the passenger died due to self-inflicted injuries covered by the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby disentitling the claimants to compensation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's order awarding compensation of Rs. 4 lakh with 6% interest per annum to the respondents. The amount deposited in court shall be governed by the Tribunal's order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Strict liability for untoward incidents
- burden of proof on railway to prove exception
- bona fide passenger presumption
- compensation under Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules
- 1990
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 95
First Appeal No.1279 of 2009
Shri P.S. Lambat for appellant, Shri S.K. Sable for respondents
Union of India, General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad
Smt. Geeta @ Sangeeta w/o Vinod Bhurewar, Omkar s/o Vinod Bhurewar, Ku. Amartha d/o Vinod Bhurewar, Smt. Mangala w/o Prakash Bhurewar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against order of Railway Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for death of passenger in untoward incident.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (Union of India) sought to set aside the Tribunal's order awarding compensation to the respondents (claimants).
Filing Reason
Appellant contended that the deceased died due to self-inflicted injuries, falling under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and thus no compensation was payable.
Previous Decisions
Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, by judgment and order dated 21-10-2008 in Claim Application No.70/OAII/RCT/NGP/2007, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, awarding Rs. 4 lakh compensation with 6% interest.
Issues
Whether the deceased passenger died due to self-inflicted injuries covered by the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?
Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the death was due to self-inflicted injuries, thus no compensation under Section 124A proviso.
Respondents argued that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, relying on the Tribunal's findings.
Ratio Decidendi
The railway failed to prove that the death was due to self-inflicted injury; the deceased was a bona fide passenger; the incident falls under 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989; the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar held that it makes no difference whether the deceased was inside the train or trying to get in; thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under Section 124A read with the Compensation Rules.
Judgment Excerpts
The question involved in the present case is whether the passenger by name Vinod Bhurewar died because of self inflicted injuries and was covered by the proviso to section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
In the case of Union of India .vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895, the apex Court has held that it will not make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train or she was trying to get into the train when she fell down.
The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger carrying with him a ticket and there is no sufficient evidence to show that the case is covered by Exceptions of Section 124 A of the said Act.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Claim Application No.70/OAII/RCT/NGP/2007 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 21-10-2008 awarding compensation. The appellant (Union of India) filed First Appeal No.1279 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 22-02-2013.
Acts & Sections
- Railways Act, 1989: 123(c), 124A
- Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990: Rule 3, Part I of Schedule
