Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Central Railway, against the judgment and order dated 18th August 2009 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in Claim Application No. 123/OAII/RCT/NGP/2006. The Tribunal had directed the Railway to pay Rs. 4,00,000 to the respondents, Ramayansingh Sukhrajsingh and Smt. Chandrawati Ramayansingh, parents of the deceased Upendrasingh. The facts are that on 29th May 2006, Upendrasingh was traveling as a bonafide passenger from Gorakhpur to Kurla by Gorakhpur-L.T. Nagar Express train No. 1016, holding a valid railway ticket for the general compartment. Due to heavy jerks and heavy rush, he fell from the running train near Hirapur Railway Station, sustained severe injuries, and died. The Railway Police investigated the incident as A.D. Case No. 23/2006 and handed over the body after post-mortem. The Railway administration denied the incident and claimed that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and was traveling on the footboard, slipping and falling. The Tribunal relied on oral evidence of the father, Ramayansingh, who was informed by a co-passenger, Pawan, about the fall due to a sudden jerk. Documentary evidence including the station master's memo, inquest report, spot panchanama, and the recovery of a railway ticket from the deceased supported the claim. The Railway alleged the ticket was fake but led no evidence. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the death was an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 124A. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c) and Section 124A - Compensation - Death of a passenger due to fall from a running train caused by sudden jerk and heavy rush constitutes an 'untoward incident' - The Railway's defence that the deceased was traveling on the footboard or that the ticket was fake was not supported by evidence - Held that the Tribunal correctly awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the dependents (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of Upendrasingh due to falling from a running train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling his dependents to compensation under Section 124A, and whether the Railway's defence that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger or was traveling on the footboard is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, upholding the Tribunal's award of Rs. 4,00,000 to the respondents.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- bonafide passenger
- burden of proof
- strict liability
- Railways Act
- 1989
- Section 123(c)
- Section 124A
- compensation
- fake ticket
- footboard travel
- jerk
- heavy rush
- fall from train
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 187
First Appeal No. 648 of 2010
Mr. P. S. Lambat for Appellant, Mr. S. K. Sable for Respondents
Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal, Mumbai
1) Ramayansingh Sukhrajsingh, 2) Smt. Chandrawati Ramayansingh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of Railway Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to parents of deceased passenger.
Remedy Sought
Appellant Railway sought to set aside the Tribunal's order directing payment of Rs. 4,00,000 to respondents.
Filing Reason
Railway disputed the occurrence of untoward incident and claimed deceased was not a bonafide passenger or was traveling on footboard.
Previous Decisions
Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in Claim Application No. 123/OAII/RCT/NGP/2006 dated 18th August 2009 awarded Rs. 4,00,000 to respondents.
Issues
Whether the death of Upendrasingh due to falling from a running train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Whether the respondents are entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Whether the Railway's defence that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger or was traveling on the footboard is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant Railway argued that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and was traveling on the footboard, slipping and falling; also alleged the ticket was fake.
Respondents contended that the deceased was a bonafide passenger holding a valid ticket, and fell due to sudden jerk and heavy rush, constituting an untoward incident.
Ratio Decidendi
A fall from a running train due to sudden jerk and heavy rush constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Railway's defence that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger or was traveling on the footboard must be supported by evidence; mere allegations are insufficient. The burden of proof lies on the Railway to establish exceptions under Section 124A, which was not discharged.
Judgment Excerpts
While traveling due to heavy jerks and heavy rush he felled down from running train near Hirapur Railway Station.
The Tribunal had satisfied itself about the fact that the deceased Upendrasingh was a bonafide passenger holding a Railway ticket.
Another contention on behalf of the appellants is that the ticket produced by the respondents’ claimant is fake. But the Railway did not bother to lead any evidence to buttress this allegation.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Claim Application No. 123/OAII/RCT/NGP/2006 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 18th August 2009 awarding Rs. 4,00,000. The appellant Railway filed First Appeal No. 648 of 2010 before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 23rd July 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Railways Act, 1989: Section 123(c), Section 124A
