The court reiterated that under strict liability provisions, complications surrounding a passenger's ticket do not negate the validity of compensation claims in cases of untoward incidents.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant/claimant has assailed the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Case No.OA/II(u)/GZB/2017/217, whereby the claim application filed by him on account of death of his son was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, has contended that the deceased died on account of an `untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and in this regard, the Tribunal failed to take into account the DRM report placed on record by the respondent, wherein it is recorded that the incident occurred due to fall from the train.

3. Learned CGSC for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order by contending that as no ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased, he was not a bonafide passenger. It is further contended that the train journey, as claimed by the appellant to have been undertaken by the deceased, was not established on record and a reference has been made to the post-mortem report.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire material placed on the record.

5. The facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that the appellant's son Sanjay Kumar (deceased), after purchasing a second- class ticket, had undertaken a train journey from New Delhi to Gorakhpur by Gorakdham Express Train on 02.02.2017. While on board, Sanjay Kumar accidently fell between Bhadan and Balrai Railway Stations and died on the spot. His body was discovered on 03.02.2017 and the appellant was informed about the death of the deceased by the Railway Police.

6. A perusal of the record would show that the body of the deceased was discovered on the railway tracks. There is neither any material on record nor any contention has been raised disputing that the spot where the body of the deceased was discovered does not fall on the train route which he had statedly undertaken.

7. In fact, during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, the DRM Report was placed on record. A reading of the same would show that based on the material collected, it was opined therein that the deceased had fallen from the train. While concluding so, it was also stated that the death had occurred on account of self-negligence of the deceased.

8. At this stage, this Court deems it expedient to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi reported as (2019) 3 SCC 572, wherein it has been held that liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is a strict, no-fault liability and the only exceptions are as provided in the said Section itself. Relevant excerpt from the decision in Rina Devi (Supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:

"20. From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. Sections 124 and 124-A provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the Railway Administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an `untoward incident'. Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to Section 124-A. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar it was held that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where pr