Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J
Jagesingh Dubersingh Nayak - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1949 OF 2010
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) Railway Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A - Claim for compensation for death of passenger in train incident - Tribunal dismissed claim on grounds of deceased not being bona fide passenger and death not resulting from untoward incident - Court found deceased was a bona fide passenger despite absence of ticket, as initial burden shifted to Railways - Death caused by untoward incident as per definition in Section 123(c)(2) - Liability established for compensation under Section 124-A. (Paras 10, 21, 25, 26)
(B) Burden of Proof - Claimants must initially prove facts; burden then shifts to Railways to disprove claims. (Paras 20, 21)
(C) Self-Inflicted Injury - Concept requires intention to inflict harm, not mere negligence; leaning out of train does not constitute self-inflicted injury. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
Claimants sought compensation for the death of their son, who allegedly fell from a local train and died after being hospitalized. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, asserting the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident was self-inflicted.
Findings of Court:
The deceased was found to be a bona fide passenger, and the incident constituted an untoward incident under the Railway Act, warranting compensation.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim based on the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger and the nature of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger, and the incident was classified as an untoward incident under the Railway Act.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. First Appeal has been preferred by the original Claimants challenging the dismissal of their application for compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal vide judgment dated 9th April, 2009.
2. The claim was filed seeking compensation for loss occasioned due to death of their son in an incident alleged to be an untoward incident on 22nd November, 2024. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim application on both counts of the deceased not being a bona fide passenger and that the death was not a result of untoward incident.
3. The Application came to be filed by Appellants pleading that the deceased had accidentally fallen down from an unknown local train near Lower Parel Railway Station on 12th November 2004 and died on 22nd November 2004 at Nair Hospital and that he had fallen due to excessive rush in local train. It was pleaded that he was holding a valid second class return ticket issued at Dadar Railway station which was lost in the untoward incident which ticket was purchased by the brother of deceased–Sugriv. Along with the Application, copy of post mortem report, panchnama, police report etc., were produced.
4. The Railways resisted the claim contending that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It was further contended that the deceased while travelling on the footboard and while leaning outside was hit by a pole. As a result, the deceased got injured and fell inside the luggage compartment of local train during non peak hours and thereafter expired. It was contended that untoward incident had occurred due to careless and negligent travelling by deceased on the footboard of local train which is a self-inflicted injury. Along with the written statement, Railways produced DRM’s report which concluded that the death had occurred due to careless and negligent travelling.
5. The Claimants examined the father of deceased as AW-1 and elder brother–Sugriv as AW-2. It was deposed by AW-1 that he was informed by his son Sugriv that the deceased had fallen down from a local train and that on 12th November 2004 his son Sugriv had purchased the second class railway return ticket from Dadar which was handed over to the deceased for his journey. He further deposed that ticket must have been lost. He further claimed that Railways have falsely alleged that it is a case of hit by railway pole and the averments are false, baseless and not supported by any other document.
6. AW-2 who is brother of deceased has deposed that on 12th November 2004 at about 12.00 hours in the afternoon he had accompanied his brother upto Dadar Railway station and had purchased for him a valid second class railway return ticket and handed over the same to the deceased which was kept by deceased in his shirt pocket in his presence. He has deposed that said ticket was not found on the body of deceased and after the accident it must have got lost owing to deceased’s fall from local train. He has deposed that when the deceased did not return back on that day, he started searching him with his relatives but the deceased was not found anywhere and on 14th November 2004 he came to know from Mumbai Central Railway station that one boy had fallen down from local train on 12th November 2004 and admitted to Nair Hospital. He has deposed that he had gone to Nair hospital and police as well as his brother had informed him that he had fallen down from the local train. He has deposed that his brother had expired on 22nd November 2004 while undergoing treatment and that the Railway police had found cash worth Rs.100/- and clothes which were handed over to him by police. He has further deposed that police have falsely written that his brother was hit by a railway pole and that he never told the police that his brother was hit by a railway pole.
7. In the cross-examination he has maintained that the deceased was having a valid local train ticket which he himself had purchased and given to him which was lost in the incident. He has maintained that he had purchased return tic
The absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger, and leaning out of a train does not constitute a self-inflicted injury under the Railway Act.
The court established that a bona fide passenger's accidental fall from a train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, entitling the victim's family to compensation, regardless of....
The absence of a ticket does not negate a claim for compensation if the deceased is proven to be a bona fide passenger, and death from falling from a train is classified as an untoward incident under....
The deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death was caused in an untoward incident, entitling the claimants to compensation.
The incident of falling under a moving train constituted an untoward incident, entitling the appellants to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
The Court affirmed that a passenger's accidental fall from a moving train constitutes an 'untoward incident', ensuring compensation under the no-fault principle without regard to negligence.
The absence of a railway ticket does not negate a claim of being a bonafide passenger; the burden of proof shifts to the Railways once the claimant provides relevant evidence.
The absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of a deceased being a bona fide passenger under the Railway Act, and compensation is payable under strict liability principles.
The absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of a deceased being a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, 1989.
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
