Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1686 (BOM)

Union of India v. Sangeeta

2015-07-27

A.P.BHANGALE

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. Mr. A.B. Bambal, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 8. 3. This Appeal is under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 preferred by the Union of India against the Judgment and Award in Claim Application No.164/OAII/RCT/NGP/2008, decided by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 4. Brief Facts are as under : On 8.6.2008, Late Devidas Manoharrao Sonkamble was traveling from Purna to Nanded by Mumbai–Nagpur Nandigram Express Train No.1401. He was seen off by his relative Shantabai Bhimrao Ahire at Purna Station. At KM No. 348/6, near Nanded Railway Station, Devidas, due to sudden jerk, fell down from the running Railway train, came under the wheels and died. The Railways defended the claim on the ground that it was not an untoward incident as there was no report from Driver or Guard about felling of any passenger. The Railway Administration had resisted the Claim on the ground that there was no untoward incident. 5. The moot question is as to whether the impugned Judgment and Order is legally sustainable? My answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons : Widow of the deceased deposed about the untoward incident. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no credible evidence to act upon. She is not an eye witness to the untoward incident. 6. Heard submissions at the Bar and perused the record. 7. It was not the case of the Railway Administration that deceased Devidas was traveling without ticket. There was no such complaint. The evidence of witness Sangeeta (Claimant) does indicate that the deceased was traveling by Railway train when he suffered the untoward incident of accident. Statements of co-passengers recorded by the police also revealed that Devidas was travelling by the said train. Shyam Nilangekar and Rahul Bhimrao had seen the untoward incident and Shyam Nilangekar had informed the Station Master, Nanded. Dead body of the deceased was taken to Government Hospital at Nanded. After the post mortem was done and inquiry was made, the Claim Application was filed. 8. Preliminary report indicated that it was accidental death. Deceased Devidas met his death due to fall from the running train. Dead body of the deceased was taken to Government Hospital at Nanded. After the post mortem was done and inquiry was made, the Claim Application was filed. 8. Preliminary report indicated that it was accidental death. Deceased Devidas met his death due to fall from the running train. Upon the evidence led, the Tribunal found that respondents/claimants were legal heirs and were dependents of deceased Devidas, who was traveling as a bonafide passenger in a Railway Compartment from Purna to Nanded. 9. Liability of the Railway Administration in the event of a consequential train accident attended with casualties has been defined in Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, which is laid down as under : “When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident”. 10. With effect from 1.8.1994, under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railway Administration has also become liable to pay compensation for loss of life or injury to bona fide rail passengers, who become victims of untoward incidents such as terrorist acts, violent attack, robbery, dacoity, rioting, shootout or arson by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, waiting hall, cloak room, reservation or booking office, platform, any place within the precincts of a railway station or the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:- “When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed, and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident : Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this Section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to : (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, “passengers” includes : (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. Quantum of Compensation : Payment of compensation is governed by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997. Under these Rules, the amount of compensation payable in case of death is Rs.4 lakhs. 8. Thus, considering the facts and legal position stated above, there was no escape route for the Railways to avoid monetary liability to compensate the claimants for the untoward incident occurred in this case. The Appeal is found without merits. Hence, the impugned Judgment and Award need no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with Costs.