Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Damodar Purshottam Thakkar - Appellants
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction First Appeal No. 1694 Of 2016
Decided On : 24-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mohan Rao, Adv.
For the Respondent: Adv. Smita Thakur, i/b Suresh Kumar, Adv.
The principle of no fault liability applies under the Railways Act, meaning contributory negligence cannot negate entitlement to compensation for untoward incidents.
Headnote:The appeal is evaluated under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 against the Tribunal's award dismissing the claim for compensation due to death by an untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court finds the prior ruling flawed as it overlooked the definition of 'untoward incident' as per Section 123(c)(2), which includes boarding a train, and evaluated evidence inadequately. Therefore, the court addresses issues including the requirements for proving passenger status and the liability standards laid out in the law. The appeal is allowed, reversing the initial ruling and awarding compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the accident until realization.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case circumstances leading to the appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the counsel for both parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. emphasis on negligence and passenger status in the debate. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legislative interpretation of 'untoward incident' in case law. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. guiding principles on liability and intoxication regarding claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. discussion on ticket possession and bona fide status. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. final determination supporting the appeal and compensation. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT:
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. This Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 (“the Act of 1987”) is directed against the judgment and award dated 21st April 2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, whereby the Claim Application No. OA (IIU)/ MCC/840/2010, preferred by the Appellants-Applicants under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (“the Railways Act”) for compensation on account of death of their son, Kaushik (“the deceased”) in an untoward incident on 7th July 2010, came to be dismissed.
2. The background facts leading to this Appeal can be stated in brief as under:
2.1 The deceased, then 25 years of age, was a bachelor. The deceased was working as a salesman in an Ayurvedic Company. The Appellants-Applicants, the parents of the deceased, are staying at Ahmadabad, State of Gujarat.
2.2 On 7th July 2010 at 12.00 midnight, the deceased was travelling by a local train on a valid second class CVM coupon ticket, on his way to Bandra from Bhayandar. The deceased fell off from local train on Platform No. 3 of the Bhayandar Station, and sustained fatal head injuries. The deceased was declared dead before admission. Hence the Application for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
2.3 The Respondent resisted the Application by filing a Written Statement. It was denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger as no ticket or pass was found on the person of the deceased while conducting inquest panchnama. The Respondent refuted that the alleged incident was an “untoward incident”. It was contended that the report of the Guard of Train No. 940A UP revealed that while boarding a running train the deceased fell off on account of his own negligence and carelessness. Thus, the incident in question did not amount to an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act.
2.4 The Tribunal recorded the evidence of Damodar Thakkar (A1)-Applicant No.1 and that of Jayesh M Parmar (R1), the Guard of the said train.
2.5 After appraisal of the oral evidence and the documents tendered for it's perusal, the Tribunal was persuaded to dismiss the Application holding, inter alia, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the Applicants failed to establish that the deceased died on account of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act. The evidence of Jayesh Parmar (R1) that the deceased allegedly fell down while trying to board a running train and the statement of a friend of the deceased, namely, Jatin Mahendra Shah that he and the deceased had consumed liquor at RC Beer Bar, weighed with the Tribunal to return the finding that the deceased himself endangered the safety of his life while trying to board a running train under the influence of the liquor.
3. Being aggrieved, the Applicants have preferred this Appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. G.S. Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, and Ms. Smita Thakur, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, at some length. The learned Counsel took the Court through the material on record especially the depositions of witnesses and contemporaneous documents tendered for the perusal of the Tribunal.
5. Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the Tribunal committed a gross error in law in holding that the incident in question did not fall within the ambit of “untowa
