Under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, falling from a moving train constitutes an 'untoward incident' entitling compensation regardless of potential negligence of the victim, affirming strict liability principles.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned CGC appearing for the sole respondent-Union of India-Railway.

2. This appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the learned Member (Technical)/RCT/Ranchi, in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/23/2022, whereby, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appellants claim of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of incident/filing of the application on account of death of their son Ajit Minj.

3. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that pursuant to the order of the co-ordinate Bench dated 16.07.2024, the Trial Court Records have been received. He submits that the appellants herein instituted the compensation case before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, which was registered as Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/23/2022, stating that the deceased Ajit Minj travelling with Subhani Tirkey and Sanjay by Train No. 12811 Hatia Express from Lokmanya Tilak to Hatia with a valid railway ticket. The ticket of Ajit Minj was lost. Subhani Tirkey and Sanjay were travelling with a valid reserved ticket in Coach No. S-6 Berth No. 15 and 12. On 19.7.2022 when the train was about to reach Karra station, Ajit Minj who was standing near the gate of the train, fell down due to sudden jerk and died on the spot. He submits that on these backgrounds, the case was registered, however, the learned tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimants on the ground that the deceased was not the bona fide passenger and the death was not coming within the meaning of untoward accident. He further submits that the deceased was standing near the gate and due to sudden jerk, the accident took place, in view of that the accident comes within the definition of untoward accident in view of Section 124(A) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. He submits that this issue has set at rest in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi , reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 . He then submits that the falling down from the moving train and in that regard the issue has been framed in para-8.3 in the said judgment, which has been answered in para-25 of the said judgment. Both paras i.e. 8.3 and 25 are quoted hereinbelow:-

“8.3. The concept of self-inflicted injury.— Whether attempt of getting into or getting down a moving train resulting in an accident was a case of “self-inflicted injury” so as not to entitle to any compensation or no such concept could not apply under the scheme of law which casts strict liability to pay compensation by the Railways under Sections 124 and 124-A. In this regard, views of the High Courts of Kerala in Joseph P.T. v. Union of India [Joseph P.T. v. Union of India, 2013 SCC On Line Ker 24151 : AIR 2014 Ker 12] , Bombay in Pushpa v. Union of India [Pushpa v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8117 : (2017) 3 ACC 799] and Delhi in Shyam Narayan v. Union of India [Shyam Narayan v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8734 : 2018 ACJ 702] may appear to be against the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] and Jameela v. Union of India [Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 644] .

25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of “self-inflicted injury” would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular