The court established that a passenger's death due to falling from a train during an unscheduled stop constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, entitling the claimants to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(G.A. Sanap, J.)

1. 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 25th October, 2023, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the claim filed by the appellants/claimants came to be dismissed.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS:

Appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased Ajay Kumar; appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased; and appellant Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. On 12th July, 2019, the deceased was travelling by Antyodaya Express. He had purchased a journey ticket at Manmad Railway Station and boarded the said train to go to Chhapra. It is stated that when the train came at Shirsoli Railway Station at midnight, the deceased, due to a sudden jerk, fell from the moving train. He sustained injuries and died. The journey ticket was recovered. He was a bona fide passenger. It is stated that the death was in an untoward incident.

3. The respondent-Railway filed the written statement and opposed the claim. It was contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket. According to the railway, the Antyodaya Express was stopped at Shirsoli Railway Station to give precedence to Duronto Express coming from the opposite direction. The deceased got down from the train and was moving on the railway track. The Loco Pilot of the Duronto Express blew horn to alert the deceased; however, he did not pay any heed. He was dashed by the Duronto Express and died due to the injuries sustained by him. It is stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased were self-inflicted injuries due to his negligent act.

4. The appellants examined three witnesses. The railway also examined three witnesses. Learned Members of the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that there was no substance in the claim and dismissed the claim. The appellants, being aggrieved by this judgment and order, are before this Court in appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. D.S. Lambat, learned advocate for the appellants and Ms. A.S. Athalye, learned advocate for the respondent-Railway. Perused the record and proceedings.

6. The following points fall for my determination:

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

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

7. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the deceased was travelling with a valid journey ticket and the ticket was found at the time of panchanama. Learned advocate submitted that learned Members of the Tribunal have failed to consider this evidence. Learned advocate further submitted that the Antyodaya Express was stopped at Shirsoli Railway Station to give precedence to Duronto Express. Learned advocate submitted that the incident occurred in the night time and therefore, the contention of the Railway that the deceased got down from off side at the railway station and was dashed by Duranto Express, cannot be accepted. Learned advocate submitted that AW-2, who was a co-passenger with the deceased, has categorically stated that the deceased, due to a sudden jerk, fell down and sustained the injuries. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence of the Loco Pilot of Duronto Express cannot be believed because if the deceased was dashed by the Duronto Express running at a speed of 80 km. per hour, then he would have been thrown away at some distance towards Antyodaya Express. Learned advocate submitted that the dead body was lying by the side of the track on which Duronto Express had passed. Learned advocate submitted that the possibility of the deceased falling down on the track when Duronto Express was passing through the station, cannot be ruled out. Learned advocate submitted that in this case, the first part of Section 124A of the Act of