Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
Ganesh S/o. Waman Waghmare & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India, Through the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST - Respondent
First Appeal No. 347 of 2022
Decided On : 09-11-2022
Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Compensation - Section 23 - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act - The court discussed the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It also referenced and discussed Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, highlighting the burden of proving an untoward incident on the claimants and the conditions for claiming compensation under Section 124-A.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased's parents filed a claim for compensation on account of their son's death in an alleged untoward incident. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that there was no evidence of the deceased being a bonafide passenger or of an untoward incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger or that an untoward incident had occurred. It held that the burden of proving an untoward incident was on the claimants, and since they failed to discharge this burden, the claim was rightly rejected.
Issues: The issues revolved around the deceased's status as a bonafide passenger and the occurrence of an untoward incident. The court analyzed the evidence to determine whether the claimants had met the burden of proving these elements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimants must prove the occurrence of an untoward incident and the deceased's status as a bonafide passenger to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Since the claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence, the claim was rightly rejected.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
This is an appeal filed by the parents of one deceased, Shubham Ganesh Waghmare under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellants herein had filed a claim for grant of compensation on account of death of their son Shubham in a purported untoward incident on 24.07.2016. The claim of the appellants was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, by judgment and order dated 13.07.2018.
2. Earlier on 25.07.2016 at 06:50 hours, the Loco Pilot of Train No.51195 Wardha – Ballarshah passenger had informed the Deputy Station Superintendent of Wagholi Railway Station on walkie-talkie that one dead body of an unknown person was lying at KM No.784/04 near DN track, Wagholi yard. After getting the said information, he had made an entry of the said incident in the Station Master’s diary and also informed the Deputy Station Superintendent, Wardha railway station, through railway auto phone. Thereafter, Railway Police Force/Personnel visited the incident spot where a crowd of people had gathered. The father of the deceased who being the resident of a nearby village had also come there, and identified the body stating that the dead person was his son Shubham Ganesh Waghmare. The inquest panchnama was conducted and it is stated therein that the head was broken by the impact of railway, left and right legs were amputated below the knee. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem and the post-mortem report in Columns 16 to 18 confirmed the same. The conclusion drawn by the police authority is that the deceased was grievously injured at the head and his legs were amputated due to being run over by the train, while crossing the railway track. The spot panchnama, as well as the inquest panchnama recorded that nothing was found in the personal search of the deceased and that nothing including any ticket had therefore been seized by the Investigation Officer.
3. The appellants claimed that the deceased was travelling from Wagholi to Hinganghat by an unknown train on 24.07.2016, after purchasing a valid and proper journey ticket at Wagholi railway station.
4. The statement of the father suggests that at around 7:00 p.m. on 24.07.2016, the deceased had left for Mohta Soot Girni at Vani, in Hinganghat along with his cousin brother for searching a job and later on 25.07.2016, his body was found in Wagholi yard. It is claimed that the deceased purchased a valid computerized unreserved second class ticket at Wagholi railway station, ex-wagholi to Hinganghat railway station and boarded an unknown train, but due to heavy rush and sudden jerk to the train, the deceased accidentally fell down from the said unknown train at KM 784/04 at Wagholi yard section beside the DN track due to which he sustained serious head injury and both his legs were amputated and eventually he died. It is claimed that the journey ticket and personal belongings of the deceased including the railway ticket have been lost/misplaced during the incident and therefore, could not be found on the person of the deceased.
5. The claim application was filed by the appellants who are parents of the deceased, which was contested by the railway authorities stating that the application was not sustainable as no such untoward incident causing the death of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act had taken place and further that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of any train as no journey ticket was found on the person of the deceased.
6. The Tribunal observed that the only witness examined by the applicants was the mother of the deceased and that she was neither an eye witness to the incident, nor to the alleged purchase of the journey ticket. That in her cross examination, she clearly stated that she did not know the name and number of the train by which the deceased was travelling. She had also stated that the deceased was in search of a job
The burden of proving an untoward incident is on the claimants, and they must provide sufficient evidence to establish the deceased's status as a bonafide passenger to claim compensation under Sectio....
The deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death was caused in an untoward incident, entitling the claimants to compensation.
The incident of falling under a moving train constituted an untoward incident, entitling the appellants to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
The absence of a ticket does not negate the presumption of a passenger's status, and the Railway is liable for compensation under section 124-A for untoward incidents.
The interpretation of the Railways Act, specifically regarding the definition of a bonafide passenger and the criteria for an untoward incident, was the central legal point established in the judgmen....
The interpretation of the definition of 'passenger' under the Railways Act and the burden of proof for an untoward incident.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
