Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1497 (BOM)

Union of India, General Manager v. Anuradha

2013-08-02

A.P.BHANGALE

body2013
JUDGMENT Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award in Claim Application No.93/OAII/ RCT/NGP/2005, dated 06/03/2009 decided by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby claimants were entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/. 2. Facts in nutshell are stated as under – On 01/10/2004 Narendra Deshmukh (deceased) was going to Purna, hence, had been to Nanded Railway Station and purchased a general class ticket for Purna at about 4.00 p.m. There was announcement that the train to Purna arrived at Platform No.3, therefore, he boarded in the train by name Sachkhand Express bearing No.2715 under the impression that it was the train going to Purna, but due to sudden jerk resulted from applying brakes to the train, he slipped out of the door way, fell down from the train and died. Due to this untoward incident, the respondents-claimants, who are legal heirs of the victim, filed the claim application in the Railway Claims Tribunal at Nagpur claiming therein that they were dependents on the deceased and entitled for compensation. 3. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, before the Railway Tribunal, Railway Administration had denied the liability on the ground that alleged victim Narendra Deshmukh desired to go to Purna by purchasing general class ticket, but he had boarded in the wrong train which in fact was going to yard after it had reached its last destination and, therefore, deceased cannot be considered as bona fide passenger of the train in which he boarded on 01/10/2004. Learned Advocate for the appellant contended that Tribunal, therefore, wrongly awarded the claim and in fact ought to have observed that the deceased did not abide by rules and regulations by boarding inside the wrong train and died as a result of wrong committed by himself. Hence, Railway is not answerable to the claim. It is therefore, prayed that impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside. The question thus arise is as to whether the Railway Administration can avoid its liability to pay compensation on this pretext? The answer must be emphatic negative for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 4. Learned Advocate for respondents submitted that deceased Narendra was a bona fide passenger, who had purchased a railway ticket for Purna and died in untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The answer must be emphatic negative for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 4. Learned Advocate for respondents submitted that deceased Narendra was a bona fide passenger, who had purchased a railway ticket for Purna and died in untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. It is contended that Railway Administration undertakes hazardous activity to take passengers from place to place by means of train and in such activity if as a result of any untoward incident any person lose his life while picking up train or felling down from the running train because of sudden jerk or crowded compartment, Railway Administration is liable to compensate such person under Section 124A as this section lays down strict liability. Learned Advocate for the respondents, submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that the victim had boarded in the wrong train mistakenly the Railway administration has strict liability to keep the passengers informed about the Chart displaying the names of Passengers, who booked reservations, positions of the general Compartments from the engine, announcements about the Platform numbers where the specific train would arrive and depart from and the name and number of the trains coming to and leaving the platforms concerned at the Railway Station therefore, he supported the impugned judgment and award by submitting that the Award is just and proper in the facts and circumstances and sought for the dismissal of the first appeal. 5. The crucial question is as to whether the deceased Narendra Deshmukh lost his life as a result of untoward incident and whether Railway Administration is answerable to compensate his dependents. The answer has to be given in the affirmative because if Railway Administration wants to claim exemption from liability to compensate the victim of an untoward incident, it is required to prove and establish exception or exceptions available to Railway Administration i.e. suicidal death, self inflicted injury, criminal act committed by the victim himself. In the present case no evidence was adduced by the Railway Administration to claim exemption from its liability to compensate the victim. The fact that deceased Narendra Deshmukh came to Nanded Railway Station and desired to go to Purna is established. In the present case no evidence was adduced by the Railway Administration to claim exemption from its liability to compensate the victim. The fact that deceased Narendra Deshmukh came to Nanded Railway Station and desired to go to Purna is established. It may be that he had boarded into wrong train, assuming that it is the same train by which he wanted to go, but even on such assumption if untoward incident had occurred while passenger was boarding the train and due to sudden jerk, he fell down from the train, Railway Administration is liable for compensation. The incident is covered under Section 124A of Indian Railways Act as an untoward incident, unless any exception is pleaded and proved by the Railway Administration. 6. Learned Advocate for the respondents made reference to the ruling in Union of India v. Parameswaram Pillai and another, reported in 2013 ACJ 635. In the identical case when passenger was travelling in the train and fell down due to sudden jerk and died on the spot, the railway had defended on the ground that victim was not bona fide passenger and no railway ticket was produced by the claimants or recovered from his body. It was held that Railways have security personnel who can arrest unauthorized travellers and there are ticket examiners in the train. Thus, in the absence of any such detection of the victim as an unauthorized traveller, presumption would be in favour of the deceased that he was travelling by purchasing a valid ticket and was a bona fide passenger. Thus, it is a duty of the Railway Administration to establish, plead and prove that deceased had travelled without a valid ticket and was not a bona fide passenger at the time of his death. In the absence of any such evidence led on the part of Railway Administration, there would be no good ground to interfere the judgment and award granted compensation for an untoward incident. 7. A reference is also made to the ruling in Jameela & Ors. v. Union of India, reported in III (2010) ACC 800 (SC) 800 to argue that when Railway Administration is unable to prove any of the exception available to it e.g. victim died as a result of suicide or self inflicted injury, the presumption must go with the victim, who had accidentally fell down from the train. v. Union of India, reported in III (2010) ACC 800 (SC) 800 to argue that when Railway Administration is unable to prove any of the exception available to it e.g. victim died as a result of suicide or self inflicted injury, the presumption must go with the victim, who had accidentally fell down from the train. In a given case, it may be rash or negligent act to stand at the open door of the compartment of train. But certainly it is not a criminal act so as to exempt Railway Administration from paying compensation in such cases. In another ruling in Union of India v. Prabhakar Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 . It is also held that Railway Administration was held liable to pay compensation for untoward incident because it will not make any difference whether deceased was actually inside the train or trying to get in such train when fell down. Thus, if victim died as a result of accidental felling from the train victim is covered within the meaning of untoward incident for which Railway is liable to compensate to the dependents of the victim in case of compensation for death claim in Prabhakaran's claim the Rule of Strict Liability of the Railway Administration was considered on the ground that since Railway Administration undertakes hazardous activity, it must bear the burden of risk of damage on such activity, may generate. 8. Railway trains are used as convenient and affordable means of conveyance by any commoner in our Country. If a Passenger unguided by Railway security personnel, ticket checkers or in absence of the regular announcements mistakenly board a wrong train halting on the platform , may on realizing his mistake fell off the train due to panicky situation or otherwise accidentally. Railway administration cannot feign ignorance about the untoward incident in such case in order to shirk away from its strict liability to compensate monetarily for the untoward fatal accidents. 9. Looking into the rulings cited and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, the presumption was in favour of the victim in the absence of any contrary evidence and, therefore, Railway Administration could not have avoided its strict liability to compensate the victim. Therefore, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and award. 10. In view of above reasons, appeal is without merit. Therefore, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and award. 10. In view of above reasons, appeal is without merit. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.