Absence of Train Ticket Not Fatal to Compensation Claim: Railways Held Strictly Liable for 'Untoward Incident' - 2024-11-14

High Court Upholds Railway Passenger's Right to Compensation Despite Lack of Ticket, Citing 'Strict Liability'

In a significant ruling, the [Name of High Court if specified in original judgment, otherwise leave blank as per provided text] has overturned a Railway Claims Tribunal decision, granting compensation to a passenger who sustained severe injuries after falling from a train. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain , emphasized the principle of ‘strict liability’ under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and clarified that the absence of a train ticket alone does not disqualify a claimant from receiving compensation.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Joginder Thakur , filed a claim for compensation after suffering grievous injuries on September 24, 2013. Thakur stated that while travelling from Darbhanga to Jagadhri, he fell from a train near Jagadhri Railway Station due to passenger rush, resulting in the partial amputation of his right foot, a fractured left arm with an iron rod implant, and head injury.

The Railways contested the claim, arguing that Thakur was not a bona fide passenger and no ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 124A of the Railways Act had occurred. The Railway Claims Tribunal initially rejected Thakur ’s petition, citing a lack of evidence proving he possessed a valid train ticket.

Court's Observations and Reliance on Precedents

Justice Jain , however, disagreed with the Tribunal's decision. The court noted that Thakur had presented a journey ticket (Ex. A-4) issued on September 23, 2013, for the Darbhanga to Jagadhri route. Referencing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Rathi Menon vs. Union of India , Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , Jameela and others vs. Union of India , Union of India vs. Rina Devi , and Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India , the High Court reiterated the principles governing railway accident compensation claims.

The judgment highlighted that Section 124A of the Railways Act imposes ‘strict liability’ on the Railway administration for ‘untoward incidents,’ which includes accidental falls from trains. The court underscored that this liability exists irrespective of any fault on the part of the Railways. Furthermore, it clarified that the exceptions to this liability, as outlined in the proviso to Section 124A, are limited and do not include passenger negligence or lack of ticket in all circumstances.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment:

• Referring to Rina Devi (supra) and Doli Rani Saha (supra) , the court stated, "mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways."
• The judgment emphasized that once the claimant presents evidence of a ticket purchase and affirms their journey, the onus shifts to the Railways to disprove the passenger's bona fide status. In this case, the Railways failed to present any evidence to counter Thakur ’s claim.
• Justice Jain noted, "The appellant sustained injuries due to sudden jerk and jolt of the train. The said situation does not fall within the exceptions as carved out in the proviso appended to Section 124A of the Act."

Verdict and Implications

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order. It ruled that Joginder Thakur is entitled to compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs, as per the 1990 compensation rules applicable at the time of the accident (2013), along with 9% interest per annum from the date of application until actual payment.

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's rulings on railway accident compensation, particularly emphasizing the 'strict liability' principle and easing the evidentiary burden on passengers to prove they were bona fide travellers. It provides significant relief to railway accident victims and clarifies the legal position regarding compensation claims under the Railways Act.