SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Del) 2344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ABHINANDAN – APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – RESPONDENT
FAO No. 16 of 2016
Decided On : 19-07-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.Sabharwal
For the Respondents: Ms. Prerna Mehta

The legal principle established is that the entitlement to compensation for an untoward incident under the Railways Act is influenced by the status of the individual as a bona-fide passenger, the presence of negligence or self-inflicted injury, and the impact of intoxication on the incident.

Headnote:

Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Compensation for untoward incident - Sections 123, 124A - The court discussed the definitions of 'accident', 'dependant', and 'untoward incident' under Section 123, and the provisions for compensation on account of untoward incident under Section 124A of the Railways Act. The court highlighted the legal position established by the Supreme Court regarding the entitlement to compensation for bona-fide passengers and the impact of negligence, criminal negligence, and self-inflicted injury on compensation claims.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant suffered amputation in both legs after falling from a train at Gurgaon Railway Station. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, stating that the appellant was not a bona-fide passenger and was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's contradictory statements regarding the purchase of the ticket and his residency, along with the presence of alcohol in his breath, led to a lack of credibility. The court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's decision based on the lack of evidence to prove the appellant's status as a bona-fide passenger and the presence of intoxication at the time of the incident.

Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's status as a bona-fide passenger, the credibility of his statements, and the impact of intoxication on the entitlement to compensation under the Railways Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contradictory statements and lack of evidence regarding the appellant's status as a bona-fide passenger, coupled with the presence of alcohol in his breath, led to a lack of credibility and entitlement to compensation.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Railway Claims Tribunal's decision to deny compensation to the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed by the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal against the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2015 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant/applicant.

2. The facts pleaded by the appellant/applicant are that he on 16.10.2014 had come to Gurgaon Railway Station for going to Delhi for some personal work. It was pleaded that when the appellant/applicant was trying to board train no.12457 then as he put his foot on the foot board, train had started and on account of overcrowding in the bogie, he fell down from the train. It is pleaded that he was taken to the Gurgaon General Hospital and as a result of the injury, he has suffered amputation in both his legs. It is further pleaded that the appellant/applicant was a bona-fide passenger travelling on a valid ticket which was lost on the spot at the time of accident.

3. Respondent/Railways contested the petition. It was pleaded that the appellant/applicant was not a bona-fide passenger and that he had died as a result of self-inflicted injuries. It was pleaded by the respondent/railways that there was no untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act, 1989.

4. At the outset, before I turn to the findings and conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal, let me reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 123 and 124A of the Railways Act, which reads as under:-

“123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124;

(b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:—

(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;

(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;

(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependent on the deceased passenger;

(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependent on the deceased passenger.

(c) “untoward incident” means—

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.—When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to—

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sect














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top