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. 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