Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ravichand Khurchankar, a 26-year-old student, was travelling by Howrah-Ahmedabad Express from Gondia to Nagpur on 7 July 2002. Due to overcrowding, he stood near the door. A sudden push from inside caused him to fall from the train, resulting in the amputation of both legs. He filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, which was dismissed on the ground that he was negligent in standing near the door. The appellant challenged this decision in the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence and found that the appellant was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket. The railway administration failed to produce any evidence to show that the appellant was negligent or that the incident was self-inflicted. The court held that standing near the door in a crowded compartment does not constitute negligence under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Section 124A - Strict Liability - Claimant fell from train due to push from crowd and lost both legs - Railway failed to prove negligence or self-inflicted injury - Held that standing near door in crowded compartment is not negligence and claimant is entitled to compensation (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimant's act of standing near the door of a crowded train constitutes negligence disentitling him to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and award dated 24.9.2004 set aside. Respondent directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization.
Law Points
- Strict liability of railway administration for untoward incidents
- burden of proof on railway to prove negligence or self-inflicted injury
- standing near door in crowded compartment not negligence per se
