Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Isulal Domaji Barbate and his minor son Kushal, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation for the death of Babybai, wife of Isulal and mother of Kushal. Babybai was a bona fide passenger traveling from Gondia to Chacher by Gondia Nagpur Local MEMU train on a valid ticket. After deboarding at Chacher station, she attempted to cross the railway line to reach the other platform, as there was no footbridge provided at the station. While crossing, she was hit by a fast-moving goods train and died from the injuries. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the accident did not constitute an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The claimants appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed the issue of whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the claimants failed to establish that Babybai died due to an untoward incident. The court noted that the claimants did not dispute that Babybai was hit by a train while crossing the tracks, but argued that the lack of a footbridge forced passengers to cross the tracks, making the accident attributable to railway negligence. The court considered the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2), which includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a train or any other accident in the course of working of a railway. The court held that the accident occurred in the course of working of the railway, as the victim was a bona fide passenger who had just deboarded and was attempting to cross the tracks due to the absence of a footbridge. The court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and that the claimants were entitled to compensation. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's award was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for determination of compensation amount.
Headnote
A) Railways - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c)(2) Indian Railways Act, 1989 - Death While Crossing Tracks - The victim, a bona fide passenger, deboarded at a station without a footbridge and was hit by a goods train while crossing the tracks. The Tribunal dismissed the claim holding it not an untoward incident. The High Court reversed, holding that the accident occurred in the course of working of the railway and the lack of footbridge made crossing necessary, thus falling within the definition of untoward incident. (Paras 4-8) B) Railways - Compensation - Section 124A Indian Railways Act, 1989 - Strict Liability - The railway administration is liable for compensation for death or injury in an untoward incident regardless of negligence. The claimants established that the victim died due to injuries suffered in an untoward incident, and the absence of footbridge was a contributing factor. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of a bona fide passenger while crossing railway tracks after deboarding due to absence of footbridge constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for determination of the amount of compensation payable to the appellants.
Law Points
- Untoward incident includes accidental falling of passenger from train or any other accident in the course of working of railway
- crossing tracks due to lack of footbridge is an untoward incident
- strict liability of railways under Section 124A
- bona fide passenger status not disputed
