Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Pratibha Wd/o Prabhakar Pawar (Pardeshi) – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No.OA (llu)/NGP/2015/0147, whereby the claim of the appellants for compensation on the account of death of one Prabhakar Pawar, husband of the appellant No.1 and father of the appellant Nos.2 to 4, came to be dismissed. The said Prabhakar Pawar is herein after referred to as “deceased.”
2. The case before the learned Tribunal is that on16.03.2013, when the deceased was travelling from Jalgaon to Dharangaon in Bhusawal-Surat Passenger Train No.59014, he fell down from the train near Paldhi Railway Station and suffered serious injuries. He was taken to civil hospital at Jalgaon where he died during the course of treatment. Both his legs got amputated due to the accident. The appellants claim that the deceased has fallen down from the train due to a jerk or due to heavy rush jostling of passengers. The claim application was filed after prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal had condoned the delay vide order dated 29.04.2015 and taken the claim applica
The court established that mere negligence does not constitute self-inflicted injury under the Railways Act, entitling dependents to compensation for death in an untoward incident.
Death of a bona fide passenger from a moving train fall constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, establishing strict liability for compensation despite negligence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal and wider interpretation of the Railways Act to advance its object, emphasizing the principle of strict liability and the re....
Claimants are entitled to compensation for death due to a railway accident despite a lack of eyewitnesses, based on strict liability principles.
The deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death was caused in an untoward incident, entitling the claimants to compensation.
The liability of railway is based on 'no fault theory' and the principle of contributory negligence cannot be invoked in cases of 'untoward incidents'.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Railways Act imposes strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents, and the burden is on the respondent to prove tha....
Negligence of a deceased passenger does not affect the strict liability for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, as accidental falls while boarding a train are deemed untoward inciden....
Absence of a train ticket does not negate the status of a bona fide passenger, provided there is sufficient corroborative evidence to support the journey claim.
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
