The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of a bonafide passenger and untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989, and the application of the principle of strict liability under Section 124A.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against order dated 18.01.2022 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in Claim Application No. OA/II/u/DLI/5/2021, whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellant/claimants was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, as summarised in the impugned order, are extracted below :

“Shri Prithvi Singh and Smt Bala Kanwar, being parents of Bhupender Singh, have filed the present claim application praying that for the death of their son in an untoward incident on 14th April 2019 between KM 34/37 Garhi Harsaru and Gurgaon railway stations, compensation be awarded. The applicants have set out a case in the claim application that Bhupender Singh, their son (hereinafter called 'deceased') on 14th April 2019 purchased a valid journey ticket bearing number UAC- 32019836 for undertaking journey from Patel Nagar to Gurgaon railway station. It is averred that the deceased on 14th April 2019 undertook journey in train number 54412 Meerut-Rewari passenger and when the train reached between Gurgaon and Garhi Harsaru Junction railway stations, the deceased, who was standing on the offside gate of the train compartment, fell down from the train and died at the spot of accident and the incident was witnessed by the Loco Pilot of train number 22985 who was manning the train going on the adjacent railway line. It is stated that Loco Pilot of train number 22985 gave a statement to GRP where he confirmed that one person travelling in train number 54412 fell down from that train and his dead body was found between Up and Dn lines. The applicants have placed implicit reliance upon the statement of Loco Pilot Tarun Kumar Sharma of train number 22985, Ex. A- 20. The said statement of Loco Pilot Ex. A-20 is at page 48 of the original claim application.”

3. Mr. Rajan Sood, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that in the present case, the deceased had lost his balance during the course of journey and fell down on the railway track, where he was hit by an incoming train. It was further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train at the time of the incident and suffered an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, inasmuch as the ticket in question was purchased at Patel Nagar Railway Station for undertaking journey from Patel Nagar to Gurgaon Railway Station, but instead of de-boarding the train at destination station, the deceased continued his journey upto Garhi Harsaru Railway Station where the accident took place.

Learned counsel placed reliance on the DRM’s Report as well as the testimony of one Loco Pilot Tarun Kumar Sharma of train No.22985 which is stated to have hit the deceased, to submit that the deceased, after de-boarding the train at Garhi Harsaru Railway Station, dashed with the said (incoming) train while crossing the railway track.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the entire records of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

6. From a reading of the case records, two questions of law are discernible in the present case – (i) whether the deceased was a ‘bonafide passenger’ in the train in question at the time of incident, and (ii) whether the accident constituted an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

7. As per the impugned judgment, a submission was made before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimants that the ticket price from Patel Nagar Railway Station to Gurgaon and Garhi Harsaru Railway Station was the same. In the alternative, it was submitted that even if the deceased travelled beyond the destination i.e. Gurgaon Railway Station, he could have regula