Bombay High Court Allows Compensation for Passenger Falling from Moving Train While Boarding - Untoward Incident Under Railways Act. The court held that an accident caused from a moving train while trying to board or deboard it is covered by the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the appellant's amputation injury is covered by the amended schedule, entitling him to compensation.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Shashikant Dhage, filed a claim under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation for grievous injuries sustained in a train accident on 29th August 2010. He was a bona fide passenger holding a valid reservation ticket from Nagpur to Tirppur. At Chandrapur Railway Station in the early hours, he alighted to buy a toothbrush but found no store. While attempting to board the coach, a sudden jerk caused him to lose balance, fall from the train, and get caught between the platform and the train, resulting in the amputation of his left leg's middle thigh. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected his application, holding that falling from a moving train is not an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The court considered whether such an accident falls within the definition of 'untoward incident'. The appellant's counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & ors, which held that accidents while boarding or alighting from a moving train are covered. The respondent argued that the accident was not an untoward incident. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization.

Headnote

A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c)(2) - Accident while boarding/alighting from moving train - The court held that an accident caused from a moving train while trying to board or deboard it is covered by the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, relying on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & ors, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 777 (SC). (Paras 5-7)

B) Railways Act - Compensation - Section 124A - Grievous injury - Amputation - The court held that the appellant's injury (amputation of middle thigh of left leg) is covered by item (19) of the amended schedule as per Notification dated 22nd December 2016, entitling him to compensation. (Paras 5-7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an accident where a passenger falls from a moving train while attempting to board or alight constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, entitling the passenger to compensation under Section 124A.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 21st April 2016 set aside. Respondent directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization. Amount to be deposited within eight weeks.

Law Points

  • Untoward incident includes accident while boarding or alighting from moving train
  • Section 123(c)(2) Railways Act
  • 1989
  • compensation for grievous injury
  • amputation covered under amended schedule
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 193

First Appeal No. 309 of 2017

2017-07-03

S. B. Shukre

Shri A. B. Bambal for appellant, Shri N. P. Lambat for respondent

Shashikant son of Nandkishore Dhage

Union of India, through its General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against rejection of compensation claim under Railways Act for injuries sustained in train accident.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought compensation for grievous injury (amputation of left leg) under Section 124A of the Railways Act.

Filing Reason

Appellant fell from a moving train while attempting to board at Chandrapur station, resulting in amputation of left leg; Tribunal rejected claim holding it not an untoward incident.

Previous Decisions

Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim application by judgment and order dated 21st April 2016.

Issues

Whether an accident where a passenger falls from a moving train while attempting to board or alight constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under Section 124A for the grievous injury suffered.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued that the accident is covered by the definition of 'untoward incident' as per Section 123(c)(2) and relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & ors, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 777 (SC). Respondent's counsel submitted that the law settled in the said case is a matter of record but did not contest the applicability.

Ratio Decidendi

An accident caused from a moving train while trying to board or deboard it is covered by the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the appellant's injury (amputation) is covered by the amended schedule, entitling him to compensation under Section 124A.

Judgment Excerpts

now it is wellsettled that the accident caused from moving train while trying to board or deboard it, is covered by definition of 'untoward incident' as given in Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. the injury suffered by the appellant as per the medical certificate vide Exhibit A30 is covered by item (19) of the amended schedule which was amended by Notification dated 22nd December 2016

Procedural History

Appellant filed claim application under Section 124A of Railways Act before Railway Claims Tribunal. Tribunal rejected claim on 21st April 2016. Appellant filed First Appeal No. 309 of 2017 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Appeal heard and allowed on 3rd July 2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Railways Act, 1989: 123(c)(2), 124A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Court holds that no substantial question of law arises where courts below have concurrently held that...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Compensation for Passenger Falling from Moving Train While Boarding - Untoward Incident Under Railways Act. The court held that an accident caused from a moving train while trying to board or deboard it is covered by the defi...