Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.
Malabai - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1460 of 2019
Decided On : 05-06-2023
RAILWAY CLAIMS - COMPENSATION FOR UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT - RAILWAYS ACT, 1989, SECTIONS 123(c), 123(b) - The court interpreted the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the death occurred due to an untoward incident. The court found that the deceased was indeed a bona fide passenger based on the evidence presented, including a valid railway ticket, and ruled that the claimant was entitled to compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Rushikesh, was traveling with friends on the Gorakhpur Express when he fell from the train and died. The claimants sought compensation, asserting that he was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident. The Railway contested the claim, arguing that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death was due to negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants provided sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an untoward incident as defined by the Railways Act. The court noted that the absence of eyewitnesses did not negate the claim, as the evidence presented was credible and supported by official reports.
Issues: 1) Whether the claimant is covered under the definition of dependant? 2) Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'untoward incident' includes the accidental falling of a bona fide passenger from a train. The burden of proof initially lies with the claimant, but can shift to the Railway if sufficient evidence is provided. The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of welfare statutes to ensure that victims of railway accidents receive compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's judgment was quashed, and the Railway Administration was ordered to pay Rs. 8,00,000 as compensation with interest to the claimants within 60 days.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, "Tribunal") in case No.OA(IIu)/NGP/249/2017 dtd. 4/6/2019 is under challenge in this appeal by the claimants as the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal can be summarized as follows:
4. In response to the notice, the respondent - Railway contested the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is further contention of Railway that the death of the deceased is not caused in an untoward incident, but the deceased died due to his own negligence, therefore, the Claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation.
5. The learned Tribunal recorded the evidence of the Claimants as well as AW-2 Rajesh Gopal Chandekar vide ExhA-78. In rebuttal, the respondent -Railway examined Shri Atul Kumar Shrivastava, Dy. Station Superintendent (Commercial) vide Exh-A-83. Besides oral evidence, the Claimant placed reliance on Merg Report, Spot Panchnama, Inquest Panchnama, whereas respondent - Railway placed reliance on DRM report Exh-A-30. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held that Claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and rejected the claim. The Tribunal further held that Claimant No. 2, though younger brother of the deceased, who has attained the age of majority, does not cover under the definition of dependant, and therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, present appeal is preferred on the ground that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence on record and erroneously held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and erroneously rejected the claim. In fact, only burden on the Claimant is to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The Claimant had proved the death of the deceased in an untoward incident by adducing the evidence by way of affidavit which is supported by the Merg Report as well as the Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama.
7. Heard learned Advocate Mrs H. S. Dhande for the appellant. She reiterated the contentions and submitted that the evidence on record shows that the deceased alongwith his brother as well as other friends was travelling in Gorakhpur Express on 17/2/2017. They all were proceeding to Pachmarhi. Due to the heavy rush in the train, they all boarded in a different coach. Therefore, they could not acknowledge the alleged incident. The railway ticket produced on record, verified by the Railway Administration is sufficient to show that deceased was a bona fide passenger. The said railway ticket was verified by the Railway Administration and found to be a genuine one. Thus, the Claimant has proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The dead body of the deceased was found
The court established that a bona fide passenger who suffers an accident while traveling is entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, and the definition of 'untoward incident' should be interp....
The claimants must prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death was caused in an untoward incident to be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
The Court affirmed that a passenger's accidental fall from a moving train constitutes an 'untoward incident', ensuring compensation under the no-fault principle without regard to negligence.
The absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of a deceased being a bona fide passenger under the Railway Act, and compensation is payable under strict liability principles.
Accidental fall from running train constitutes untoward incident for bonafide passenger; affidavit discharges initial burden, shifting to railways on preponderance of probabilities; no-fault compensa....
The absence of a ticket does not negate the status of a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, and injuries sustained while boarding a train constitute an 'untoward incident' entitling the victi....
The absence of a ticket does not negate a claim for compensation if the deceased is proven to be a bona fide passenger, and death from falling from a train is classified as an untoward incident under....
The absence of a valid ticket does not negate the presumption of a passenger's bona fide status, and the Railway Administration is strictly liable for untoward incidents.
The court established that a bona fide passenger's accidental fall from a train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, entitling the victim's family to compensation, regardless of....
The main legal principle established is the importance of establishing a person as a bona fide passenger and the need for a liberal interpretation of welfare statutes to ensure compensation for victi....
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
