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.

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 application for adjudication on merits.

3. The respondent appeared before the Tribunal in the mater and opposed the claim by filing written statement dated 11.08.2015. The respondent claimed that the deceased was not travelling by the said train and therefore, the appellants were not entitled to claim compensation on the account of his death. Shelter was taken under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) to contend that the injury suffered by the deceased was self-inflicted injury and therefore, the accident cannot be said to be an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act and therefore, the appellants were not entitled to claim the compensation.

4. The appellant No.1/widow of the deceased entered into the witness box. She was cross-examined by the respondent. She has admitted in her cross examination that she was not travelling along with the deceased and therefore, she has not seen the incident. She denied that the deceased did not purchase any journey ticket for his travel. She also denied the suggestion that the deceased was standing on the foot-board of the coach and fell down due to his negligence. The respondent has not examined any witness.

5. After the accident occurred on 16.03.2013, the investigation report was issued by the respondent, wherein it is stated that the deceased had fallen down while alighting from running train. There is another report dated 12.03.2015 on record, which mentions the same reason as cause of the accident. The said report also records that one second class railway travelling ticket No.70889293 dated 16.03.2013 was found on the person of the deceased. Perusal of the accident death case recorded under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) also demonstrates that the cause of the accident was alighting from running train.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal was pleased to reject the claim vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2018. The learned Tribunal has referred to accidental death report which states that the deceased met with an accident while alighting from running train. The Tribunal has disbelieved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and recorded that the ticket appeared to have been planted during the course of Panchnama. This finding is recorded on the basis of the observation that there appears no reason for the deceased to travel from Jalgaon to Bhusawal on the said date. The learned Tribunal has also held that the burden of proving the death in ‘untoward incident’ was upon the appellants, which they had failed to discharge.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to the record and also perverse. He