Bombay High Court Allows Compensation Claim for Train Accident Victim Under Railways Act, 1989 — Amputation of Leg Due to Fall from Train Held as 'Accidental Falling' from Train Carrying Passengers.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 13
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Ramesh Istari @ Istaru Kore, filed a claim for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, alleging that on 24.2.2016, while travelling from Saundad to Barabhati by Gondia Ballarsha train after purchasing a valid journey ticket, he fell from the running train at Gond Umri Railway Station due to rush and sudden jerk. His left leg was cut and had to be amputated above the knee. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger. The appellant challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after perusing the record, found that the appellant had purchased a valid ticket and was a bona fide passenger. The court held that the incident was an 'accidental falling' from a train carrying passengers, attracting strict liability 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. 3,20,000 with 9% interest from the date of the incident.

Headnote

A) Railways Act - Accidental Falling - Section 124A - Compensation - The appellant fell from a running train due to rush and sudden jerk, resulting in amputation of his left leg above the knee. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on ground that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger. The High Court held that the appellant had purchased a valid ticket and was a bona fide passenger. The incident amounted to 'accidental falling' from a train carrying passengers, attracting strict liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court allowed the appeal and granted compensation of Rs. 3,20,000 with 9% interest from the date of the incident. (Paras 1-14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant's fall from the train and subsequent amputation of his left leg constitutes an 'accidental falling' from a train carrying passengers, entitling him to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 set aside. Respondent directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,20,000 with 9% interest from the date of the incident.

Law Points

  • Accidental falling from train
  • strict liability
  • burden of proof
  • valid ticket
  • amputation
  • compensation under Railways Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 148

First Appeal No. 573 of 2018

2018-06-21

M. S. Karnik, J.

Mr. S.K. Sable for appellant; Mr. N.P. Lambat a/w Ms. Shweta Hanwate for respondent

Ramesh Istari @ Istaru Kore

Union of India

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

Nature of Litigation

First appeal against order of Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing claim for compensation for injuries sustained in train accident.

Remedy Sought

Compensation of Rs. 3,20,000 with 9% interest from the date of incident.

Filing Reason

Appellant fell from running train due to rush and sudden jerk, resulting in amputation of left leg above knee.

Previous Decisions

Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dismissed claim application on 25.10.2017 on ground that appellant was not a bona fide passenger.

Issues

Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident. Whether the appellant's fall from the train constitutes an 'accidental falling' under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant submitted that he had purchased a valid journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger. Respondent argued that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and the claim was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was a bona fide passenger having purchased a valid ticket. The incident of falling from a running train due to rush and sudden jerk resulting in amputation is an 'accidental falling' from a train carrying passengers, attracting strict liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The claimant is entitled to compensation.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant was travelling from Saundad to Barabhati by Gondia Ballarsha train on 24.2.2016 after purchasing a valid journey ticket. The left leg of the appellant was cut as he came under the train. His left leg had to be amputated above the knee. The appellant therefore filed the claim for compensation.

Procedural History

Claim application filed before Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. Tribunal dismissed claim on 25.10.2017. Appellant filed First Appeal No. 573 of 2018 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. High Court allowed appeal on 21.06.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Railways Act, 1989: 124A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Compensation Claim for Train Accident Victim Under Railways Act, 1989 — Amputation of Leg Due to Fall from Train Held as 'Accidental Falling' from Train Carrying Passengers.
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Tender Cancellation by TWAD Board — Holds That Cancellation Without Prior Notice and Opportunity of Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice and That Tender Conditions Must Be Strictly Const...