The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of strict liability under the Railways Act, emphasizing the entitlement to compensation irrespective of negligence on the part of the railways.

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 12th September, 2016 whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakh along with interest @ 9% per annum to the respondents.

2. On 16th August, 2014, Balram boarded train No.14625 from Shakur Basti. Balram fell down near Sampla Railway Station which resulted in fatal injuries. The respondents are parents of Balram and they filed an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the deceased was negligent in de-boarding from a running train.

4. The Railway Claims Tribunal held the deceased to be a bona fide passenger by accepting the respondents’ contention that the deceased had travelled for quite a distance and lost the ticket. The Railway Claims Tribunal applied the principles laid down in Pratima Bhagat v. Union of India, OA (IIu) 218/2014 dated 08th August, 2016 to hold the accident to be an untoward incident. The relevant portion of Pratima Bhagat (supra) is reproduced as under:-

“2. Whether the death of the deceased was on account of any untoward incident, as alleged in the claim application?

(a) While the applicants contention was that after getting into the train, due to heavy rush and intense jostling amongst passengers, he accidentally fell down from the moving train, the contention of the Railways is that he was attempting to get into the train even when the train was moving and he tripped and fell by his own criminal negligence.

(b) The fall from the train is defined as an untoward incident and there are some legal approaches which are time and again brought before the Tribunal to make a distinction between ordinary negligence and criminal negligence. The attempt in defence at all times is that when there is a fall from a moving train while a person is attempting to board in a moving train, it must be construed as criminal negligence. This is, on certain occasions, used interchangeably as self-inflicted injury. We propose to enter into a serious examination of this contention by an extensive discourse and anchor our findings through the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that hold in our view that in a scheme of strict liability, the interpretation shall be to favour the injured victims, the claimants and their representatives. There have been several decisions of the various High Courts, barring sporadic exceptions, which have held that a passenger who was guilty of criminal negligence invites a self inflicted injury, which will not qualify for the expression death or injury by untoward incident and the railway administration shall be exonerated. Even if a claim were to be allowed, since courts have held that criminal negligence was not established, as though, if it had been so established, the claim could have been dismissed. In our view, there is a sure fallacy in reasoning contained in the judgments and making a wrong inference from the SC judgments as a proposition of law which the latter does not so lay down. There are two areas of interpretation of the provisions of law relating to railways claims that require a re-appraisal.

(c) Criminal negligence is understood as including a rash act or grossly negligent act. This defence is taken usually in the following cases:

(i) a passenger attempting to board or de-board from a running train in a scheduled or unscheduled stop;

(ii) boarding or de-boarding from the off-side, that is the other said of the platform;

(iii) travelling on the roof of the train and

(iv) leaning outside the door or the window and getting hit by the electrical pole. In every one of these situations, the assumed underlying strength in the plea is that the passenger is doing some act which is against express instructions of passenger safety, contained in the Act, Rules or circulars and to that extent the act is criminal or unauthorized and the claimant or the legal representati