Injuries sustained while boarding a train constitute an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, entitling bona fide passengers to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(G.A. Sanap, J.)

1. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act of 1987"), challenge is to the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2023, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the claim filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

3. BACKGROUND FACTS:

The appellant is the injured in this case. It is stated that on 21st September, 2018, he came to Pathrad Railway Station to go to Nanded. At the railway station, he purchased the journey ticket. After arrival of the Nizamabad-Nanded Passenger Train, the appellant, along with his friend Suraj Yedke, boarded the train. There was a heavy rush in the train. It is stated that while entering the train, there was a jerk to the train, and as a result thereof, he fell down and sustained the injury. His friend Suraj pulled the chain, and, therefore, the train was stopped. He sustained the injury to his right leg. His leg was crushed under the wheels of the train. He was carried by the same train to Nanded. The ticket was handed over by him to the police. It is stated that the injury sustained by him was in an untoward incident. He was a bona fide passenger.

4. The respondent-Railway filed the written statement and opposed the claim. The railway has denied the claim in toto. It was contended that the injured tried to board a moving train. The Guard of the train had seen him while running to catch the train. The Guard had warned him not to chase and board the train. He did not listen to the Guard. In the process, he fell down and was crushed under the wheels of the train. He was not having a valid journey ticket.

5. The appellant examined himself as a sole witness in support of his claim. He has relied upon the documentary evidence to establish the disability and injury sustained by him. The railway examined one witness, namely the Guard of the Nizamabad-Nanded Express. Learned Members of the Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, found that there was no substance in the claim and dismissed the same. The appellant, being aggrieved by this judgment and order, is before this Court in appeal.

6. I have heard Ms. Sumesha Choudhari, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Neerja Chaubey, learned advocate for the respondent-Railway. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. The following points fall for my determination:

(a)Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket at the time of the incident?

(b)Whether the appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident as understood by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act of 1989")?

8. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the journey ticket was recovered. Learned advocate submitted that the journey ticket was duly verified and found to be genuine. Learned advocate submitted that, after purchasing the journey ticket, the injured boarded the train, but due to heavy rush and sudden jerk to the train, he fell down and sustained injury. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence of RW-1 is not sufficient to prove that the injured tried to board a moving train. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence of RW-1 deserves to be discarded. Learned advocate further submitted that the right leg just below the knee was amputated and, therefore, the case of the appellant would be covered by Clause 20 of Part III of the Schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Learned advocate submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

9. Learned advocate for the respondent-Railway has supported the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence of RW-1 is sufficient to prove that the injured came running from the village side to board the moving train. Learned advocate submitted that, in this process, the injur