Back
2016 Supreme(Jhk) 849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Amitav K. Gupta, J.
Suhawani Burah, w/o Late Nelson Burah & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata - Respondent
M.A. No. 186 of 2012
Decided On : 05-05-2016
For the Appellant : M/s. Rajesh Kumar Jha
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha
The burden is on the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the injury was self-inflicted or due to a criminal act, as per the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
Headnote:
Railway Act - Compensation - Section 123(c)(2), Section 124-A - The court discussed the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, which provides for strict liability and exceptions for the Railways to escape liability. The court emphasized that the burden is on the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the injury was self-inflicted or due to a criminal act. The court also highlighted the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c)(2) and the entitlement to compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The claim for compensation was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the basis that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the injury was self-inflicted. The appellants appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Railway administration failed to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the injury was self-inflicted or due to a criminal act. It emphasized the definition of 'untoward incident' and directed the Railway Administration to pay compensation to the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the injury was covered under the exceptions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden is on the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the injury was self-inflicted or due to a criminal act. It also emphasized the entitlement to compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed, directing the Railway Administration to pay compensation to the appellants.
Amitav K. Gupta, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.05.2012 passed in Case no.TAU/RNC/2002/0016 by the learned Member(Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench (hereinafter referred as Tribunal) whereby claim of the appellants, i.e. wife and sons of the deceased-Nelson Burah, was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal has disbelieved the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid ticket because A.W.2, B.B. Lugun could not say what was the fare from Tatanagar to Rourkella despite his assertion that he had seen the deceased purchasing the ticket and no railway ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased during preparation of the inquest report. It is submitted that the memo of Sr. Divisional Medical Officer, Chakradharpur (Annexure-1), F.I.R (Annexure-2) and inquest report (Annexure-3) were filed with the claim application and there is evidence on record that shows that the deceased had accidental fall from the train. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim on the basis of the memos and statement of the railway authorities that the deceased was leaning out of the door of the compartment due to which he sustained injury on the head on being hit by the over head electric pole where after the injured/deceased was brought to South Eastern Railway Hospital, Chakradharpur for treatment where he died on 25.06.2001.
3. It is argued that just because the ticket was not found on the body of the deceased, it cannot be inferred that he was not a bona fide passenger. It is submitted that even if the statement of the railway authorities has been relied upon by the Tribunal it supports the fact that the deceased was travelling on the train and he fell down from the train which comes within the purview of 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act. It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the manner of occurrence comes within the exceptions (a) to (e) as contemplated in the proviso of Section 124-A and the Railways are not liable to pay compensation.
It is contended that the impugned judgment has been passed against the provisions of law and is fit to be set aside and the Railway is liable to pay the compensation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the claimants have not produced any evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger neither any ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. The witness, namely, A.W.2 has made contradictory statement as he could not disclose the fare between Tatanagar Station to Rourkela Jn. despite the fact that he had seen the deceased purchasing the ticket, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of A.W.2. It is argued that the Tribunal considered Ext.-R-2E, i.e. the report sent by the Sr. Divisional Medical Officer, Chakradharpur to the Officer-in-charge of Government Railway Police that the deceased had sustained head injury and the Government Railway Police registered the case based on the memo of Sr. Divisional Medical Officer. As per Ext. R-2A, the R.P.F Officer has mentioned that the deceased sustained head injury on being hit by the over head electric pole which is supported by the report of Investigating Officer that the deceased sustained injuries on being struck by the overhead electric pole because he was leaning out of the door of the compartment. It is contended that the evidence brought on record by the respondent/Railway authority leads to the inference that the injury was self-inflicted since it was sustained by the deceased due to his own negligence accordingly it is covered under Exceptions (b) and (c) of the proviso of Section 124-A of the Act.
Learned counsel, while relying on the decisions of this High Court in the case of Smt. Archna Verma v. Union of India, reported in 2015(4) JLJR 134 has contended that in similar circ
