Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 1755
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.P. BHANGALE, J.
Smt. Madhuri Anil Thalkiya & Others
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager
First Appeal No. 118 of 2010
Decided On : 04-09-2013
For the Appellant:G.J. Mohan Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Sangeeta Yadav i/b Suresh Kumar, Advocates.
Headnote:RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 - Section 123(c)(2) - Claim of compensation for untoward incident.
Where deceased, a bona fide passenger died due to accidental fall from running local train therefore claimant entitled to compensation payable by railways. - Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation for death and injury to passengers due to accidents.
Accidental death of any passenger falling from the train is covered within the meaning of untoward incident and under Section 124 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, Railway is liable to pay compensation, which must be reasonable in accordance with law. Four lakhs for death by untoward incident of any bona fide passenger traveling by the Train in view of sub-rule (2) of the Rule 1 of the Railway accidents and untoward incident (compensation) Amendment Rules which came in to force from 1st day of November 1997. It is desirable this limit of compensation of four lakhs payable to the dependents of the victim of untoward incident need to be further amended reasonably considering relevance of the growth of inflation and diminished value of Rupees since last amendment was made in 1997, to enhance the quantum of compensation amount to make it reasonable, fair and equitable. Compensation is payable to the dependents of the victim of an untoward fatal incident for whose family he is lost forever as an earning member of the family. If he was only earning member of the family the hardship is more acute when deceased had left minor children who need care and attention for their upbringing and education, because the compensation payable by the Railway administration under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 is liability to the prescribed extent only and not more. Under Section 124-A Railway administration is made liable for loss occasioned by an untoward incident occurring in the course of working of Railway. That the Rule making authority concerned would do the needful in this regard to enhance the quantum of compensation reasonably considering the fact that when an unfortunate family lose their sole bread earner for ever the damage is pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, general as well as special.
RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 - Section 123(c)(2) - Compensation for untoward incident.
Dependents of any bona fide passenger of train, holding valid platform ticket, upon entering into Railway premises, if becomes victim of an untoward fatal accident, must be compensated by Railway Administration. - Dependents of any bona fide passenger of the train or even holder of valid platform ticket, upon entering into Railway premises if such bona fide user becomes victim of an untoward fatal incident must be compensated, even assuming for the sake of argument that such user was knocked down by the train. In such cases the liability of the Railway administration is strict, irrespective of proof of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration.
1 The appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 03-11-2009 in claim case no 289 of 2005 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Mumbai whereby the claim application filed by the dependents of the deceased Anil Girdhar Thalkia was dismissed.
2. Facts briefly are:-
Anil Girdhar Thalkia aged about 30 years and his wife Madhuri were travelling with their three month old child by Local Train from Borivali to Churchgate on 30-03-2001 as bonafide passengers. While the local train with usual rush of passengers was running between the stations of Goregaon and Jogeshwari, unfortunately Anil had fallen down accidentally from the train, injured and died on the spot. Valid second class railway ticket from Borivali to Churchgate was recovered from the body of Anil during the inquest Panchanama drawn by Railway police.
3. The Railway administration contested the claimv and disputed the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the deceased was knocked down by the Train and he was not bonafide passenger.
4. Heard submissions at the bar and perused evidence recorded in the case.
5. The evidence led consisted of Smt. Madhuri, widow of the deceased Anil clearly indicating that she along with her Husband and child were travelling from the Borivali station to Churchgate after buying second class return card tickets. The return tickets were kept by her Husband in his shift pocket. While Smt. Madhuri was traveling with her three month old daughter she was offered a seat by a sympathizer co- passenger. As it was crowded compartment while the train was running between the Goregaon and Jogeshwari stations, Anil fell down accidentally from the train. The train did not stop though she requested the co-passengers to pull the chain. It stopped at Jogeshwari Railway station. Smt Madhuri reported the untoward incident to the Jogeshwari Railway Police. Then Madhuri went with Railway Police to the spot by walking and saw dead boy of her Husband. According to her the station master had wrongly issued Memo on hearsay basis that Anil was knocked down by the train while crossing the railway track. Railway witness Jagdish Singh stated that he was informed by unknown person about unknown Male aged about 30 years knocked down by the train between Goregaon and Jogeshwari stations. He had not received Memo from the Motorman or Guard. Thus Railway Witness was not in position to depose the truth as to whether Anil was knocked down or fell down from the Train. Memo Ex A-5 therefore could not have been relied upon. Smt Madhuri was material eye witness who had traveled with her husband Anil from Borivali to Churchgate and saw him fell down from the running Train. Her direct version of the untoward fatal incident is corroborated by the fact that during the Inquest Panchanama two western Railway card tickets no. 60609 and 60610 from Borivali to Churchgate were recovered from the body of victim and the dead body was identified as that of Anil Girdhar Thalkia. Death Certificate dated 30-03-2001 indicated that the death was as result of head injury in case of Railway accident (Unnatural). Post Mortem also confirming the same. The interested hearsay version of Railway employees was clearly motivated to save Railway Administration from the liability to pay Compensation to the claimants. Version of the Railway Administration ought to have been discarded by the Tribunal. Pre-ponderence of probabilities were clearly in favour of the Claimant. The liability of the Railway administration is strict. It is answerable to explain and satisfactorily establish the facts pleaded to the contrary. The version of the Railway administration employee Jagdish Prasad is found evasive and interested to save the Railway administration from its liability to compensate the dependents of the victim Anil. There was no fact pleaded by way of any exception so as to believe that victim was rash and negligent in any manner so as to endanger his own safety or that he indulged i
