Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 400 (BOM)

Abdul Rashid v. Union Of India

2020-02-21

M.G.GIRATKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is against the Judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No.OA/(LLU)/NGP/2012/0001, dt.4.8.2015. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in short, are as under : On 4.2.2010, deceased Firdaus Kausar along with her sisters and mother was going to Badnera from Ajni Railway Station by Train No.1040 (Up) Gondia-Kolhapur Maharashtra Express. The deceased fell down from the running train at Ajni Railway Station and died in the accident. The deceased was having valid train ticket no.3971524 purchased by paying fare of Rs.200/-. The legal heirs of deceased filed Claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after verifying the evidence adduced by the claimants, came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to her own negligence and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation. The learned Tribunal recorded its finding that the evidence is contradictory. The evidence of claimants show that she died while she was in the running train. On the other hand, other evidence shows that she was on platform and while hurriedly trying to board the train, she died. Therefore, it was held that it is not an untoward incident and the claim was rejected. 3. Heard Ms Gayatri Dive, learned Counsel holding for Mr.P.R.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant. She has pointed out the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Jameela and Others .vs. Union of India reported in 2010 AIR (SC) 3705 : 2010 ACJ 2453 and submitted that even though the deceased died due to her own negligence, her claim cannot be rejected. It is not a criminal act and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the application. The learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of this Court delivered on 31.7.2019 in First Appeal No.152 of 2018 (Rekha w/o. Pradeep Suryavanshi .vs. Union of India, through its General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) . 4. Mr.P.S.Khubalkar, learned Counsel for the respondent strongly supported the impugned Judgment. He has submitted that the evidence adduced by the appellants is contradictory and therefore, the same is rightly not relied by the Claims Tribunal. The learned Counsel has submitted that the deceased died due to her own negligence and therefore, the Railways is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. He has submitted that the evidence adduced by the appellants is contradictory and therefore, the same is rightly not relied by the Claims Tribunal. The learned Counsel has submitted that the deceased died due to her own negligence and therefore, the Railways is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. Honble Apex Court in the case of Jameela and Others .vs. Union of India has held that assuming that the deceased fell from the running train due to his negligence, it is not a criminal act so as to attract clause (c) of provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 . Therefore, the Railway is liable to pay compensation. 6. Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India .vs. Rina Devi (cited supra) has held that as per the principle of strict liability, liability is on the Railways as per Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under : "124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident. - 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 dependant 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 purposes of this section, "passenger" includes - (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident." 7. As per Section 124A, the burden is on the Railways to prove any of the exceptions carved out in Section (a) to (e) to Section 124A. As per the observation of Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India .vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 , where the principle of strict liability or no fault liability applies, proof of negligence is not required and therefore, burden is to be discharged by the Railways by adducing proper evidence. In the present case, the claim of appellants is rejected only on the ground that the deceased died due to her own negligence. In the case of Jameela and Others .vs. Union of India (supra), Honble Apex Court has held that even if the deceased fell down from the running train in the course of boarding or de-boarding the train, it is an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(1)(c) of the Railways Act and therefore, the Railways is liable to pay the amount of compensation. 8. There is no dispute that the deceased was a bona- fide passenger. She was having a valid journey ticket. The deceased died due to her own negligence. That cannot be a ground to reject the claim of appellant. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs only) to the appellants within a period of four months.