A bonafide passenger possessing a valid privilege pass is entitled to compensation in untoward incidents, regardless of allegations of negligence.

Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c), 124(A) - Appeal against the dismissal of a claim petition on grounds of non-bonafide passenger status due to negligence - The deceased, possessing a valid privilege pass, was deemed a bonafide passenger. The court found that death occurred during an untoward incident entitled to compensation. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 11, 13)

(B) Legal principles regarding the concept of self-inflicted injuries in claims under no-fault theories - Mere negligence does not constitute self-inflicted injury; the death resulting from the incident was not affected by the victim's conduct under the no-fault theory as established in prior rulings. (Paras 9)

Facts of the case:
The claimants, wife and sons of the deceased, contended the dismissal of their claim for compensation after the deceased fell from a train, arguing he was a bonafide passenger based on a valid privilege pass.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the deceased was indeed a bonafide passenger, and injuries suffered were attributable to an untoward incident, mandating compensation to be reassessed.

Issues: The key issues addressed the character of the deceased as a bonafide passenger and the nature of the incident involving negligence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that having a valid privilege pass and the occurrence of the incident confirmed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger under applicable laws, thus qualifying for compensation.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and remanded for compensation determination.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of claim due to railway incident (Para 1 , 2)
2. disputes regarding negligence and passenger status (Para 3 , 4)
3. assessment of untoward incident based on evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. legal interpretation of self-inflicted injuries (Para 9)
5. conclusion and remand for compensation determination (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as the `Act'), the appellants/claimants have assailed the order dated 18.08.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Case No.OA/II(u)/DLI/13/2019 titled as Smt. Raj Bala & Ors. v. Union of India.

2. The appellants, who are statedly the wife and sons of the deceased/Ram Kumar, had preferred the claim petition under Section 16 of the Act. In the evidence by way of affidavit filed by appellant No.1 before the Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was employed as a Trackman and posted at the Old Delhi Railway Station, Northern Railway. He had a privilege pass bearing No.887956 and on 29.05.2018, he, alongwith one Ravi Kumar, undertook a train journey from Sadar Bazar to Nangloi by Sirsa Express Train. When the train reached near Nangloi Railway Station, the deceased fell down from the train and the same resulted in grievous injuries all over his body. He was immediately taken to Sonia Hospital, where an MLC was prepared. The deceased died during treatment and later, his postmortem was conducted at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and suffered injuries on account of his own negligence. It was further contended that while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was issued a Privilege Pass bearing No.887956 authorizing him to travel from Kanya Kumari to Mata Vaishno Devi Katra. Reportedly, the said pass was valid from 12.04.2018 to 11.09.2018 and verified in the report of the DRM proceedings. Learned counsel also drew the attention of the Court to an endorsement made on the said pass indicating not only the train number but also travel date as well as the boarding Station (Sadar Bazar). He further submitted that the incident resulting in death of the deceased was an `untoward incident' as defined under Section 123 (c) read with Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989.

It was also contended that the reliance placed on the statement of Ravi Kumar, a co-passenger of the deceased and an employee of the respondent, made during the DRM proceedings is misplaced, as another statement of Ravi Kumar, was recorded on the day of the accident by GRP, which is contrary to the statement recorded during DRM proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the injuries suffered by the deceased were on account of his own negligence, inasmuch as it is borne out of the DRM proceedings that the deceased attempted to deboard from a running train before it could reach Nangloi Railway Station.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

6. In the impugned order, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was neither a bonafide passenger nor suffered injuries in an untoward incident. Concededly, there is no dispute as to the incident taking place on 29.05.2018 while the deceased was travelling in the aforesaid train. The only dispute is with respect to the mode and manner of the accident having taken place.

7. It is noted that the privilege pass of the deceased, though not recovered at the time of the incident, was subsequently seized during Jamatalashi on 30.05.2018. The same was exhibited in the proceedings before the Tribunal as Ex.A4 and the Jamatalashi Memo was exhibited as Ex.A7. Even as per