Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 2101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.A.Sanap, J.
Lalchand - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
First Appeal No. 675 of 2013
Decided On : 03-10-2023
R.S.Charpe, Advocate, N.P.Lambat, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
In railway accident claims, the principle of 'no fault theory' prevails, and the negligence of the victim cannot be used as a defense against compensation claims for injuries sustained during travel.
Headnote:
RAILWAY CLAIMS - COMPENSATION FOR INJURY - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987; Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 - The court discussed the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, particularly Section 23, which allows for appeals against the Tribunal's decisions. It also referenced the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, specifically Rule 3, which outlines compensation for injuries. The court interpreted the 'no fault theory' principle, emphasizing that negligence of the victim cannot negate the right to compensation for injuries sustained during railway travel. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to compensation based on the amended provisions of the rules, reflecting the severity of the injuries sustained.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant suffered serious injuries, including the amputation of his left leg, after falling from a running train while traveling with a valid ticket. He claimed compensation for 100% permanent disability, while the railway contended that the injuries were self-inflicted due to the appellant's negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was a bona fide passenger and that the injuries were sustained due to an untoward incident. The Tribunal's initial award of compensation was deemed insufficient given the severity of the injuries and the appellant's loss of capacity to work.
Issues: 1) Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger traveling with a valid journey ticket? 2) Whether the appellant sustained injuries due to a fall from a running train, qualifying as an untoward incident?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of 'no fault theory' applies in railway accident claims, meaning that the railway cannot invoke the victim's negligence as a defense. The court emphasized that injuries sustained while boarding or deboarding a train are considered untoward incidents, entitling victims to compensation regardless of contributory negligence.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant was awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,40,000, deducting the amount already received. The railway was directed to pay the balance within eight weeks, with interest applicable if not paid within four months.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. In this appeal, filed under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short "the Act of 1987"), challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 02/08/2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the claim application made by the appellant was partly allowed.
2. Background facts:- The appellant met with an accident while travelling in railway. On 12/1/2011 the appellant was proceeding to Nagpur from Butibori by Bhusawal Nagpur passenger train with valid railway ticket. It is his case that due to heavy rush and sudden jerk he fell from running train at Butibori Station. He sustained serious injuries. He was shifted to Orange City Hospital. His left leg was amputated. In his right leg there was no sensation. According to appellant, he has sustained 100% permanent disability. He therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.10, 00, 000.00.
3. Respondent filed written statement and opposed the claim. It is denied that the appellant sustained the injuries in an untoward incident. According to the railway, the incident occurred due to negligent act of the appellant. The appellant did not take care. He boarded the running train. He lost his balance and fell down. The injury sustained was self inflicted injury. He was not entitled to get the compensation.
4. The learned Member of the Tribunal framed as many as three issues. The learned Member of the Tribunal answered the issues in favour of the appellant and awarded the compensation of Rs.3, 20, 000.00 (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only). Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal, appellant has come before this Court.
5. I have heard Shri R.S. Charpe, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri N.P. Lambat, learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances following points fall for my determination:
i) Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket?
ii) Whether the appellant sustained the injuries due to fall from running train and as such in an untoward incident?
7. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there is voluminous documentary evidence to substantiate the contention of the appellant that due to the injuries sustained by him, he has deprived of his capacity to do any work. Learned Advocate submitted that the injury sustained is non schedule injury and therefore, the appellant would be entitled to get higher compensation. Learned Advocate submitted that in the disability certificate produced on record, the percentage of disability mentioned is 80%. Learned Advocate submitted that learned Member of the Tribunal instead of considering the injury as a schedule injury, ought to have considered the injury as covered under Rule 3 sub-rule (2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short Rules, 1990). Learned Advocate submitted that the appellant in his evidence has stated that due to injury sustained by him, he is not capable to do any work. Learned Advocate pointed out that the appellant was doing labour work and the injury sustained by him has totally deprived him of his capacity to do the labour work. Learned Advocate therefore, submitted that the appellant is entitled to get compensation higher than the one awarded by the learned Member of the Tribunal.
8. Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and on the basis of the evidence has rightly quantified the compensation. Learned Advocate submitted that the injury sustained by the appellant was schedule injury covered by Part III clause (17) of the Schedule. Learned Advocate submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Member of the Tribunal at the rate prevailing on the date of the accident was therefore, just proper and reasonable.
9. The appellant has examined himself as sole witness in support of his claim. It is the
