Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI
Nandini Biswal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In filing this FAO, the Appellants claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of the deceased who is claimed to have been died of a train accident, have challenged the impugned judgment/ order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in Case No.O.A/IIU/BBS/2012/ 0052.
Apart from the above challenge, the Appellants have also sought for a direction from this Court to the Respondent for granting necessary compensation in their favour due to untimely death of their belongings in the alleged train accident.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Due to some personal work the deceased on 12.10.2016 was travelling from Bhubaneswar to Bolangir by Puri-Durg Express in general compartment. The deceased is claimed to have been proceeding on the strength of a valid general class journey ticket. It is alleged that during course of journey, due to push and pull of passengers inside the compartment, the deceased fell down from the said train near Hirakud Railway Station at KM No.569/10 and died on the spot. Soon after the said incident a criminal case was instituted by t
The absence of a train ticket does not automatically negate the status of a bona fide passenger; compensation is due for deaths resulting from untoward incidents as defined under the Railways Act.
The claimant must only prove the occurrence of an untoward incident; the absence of a ticket does not preclude compensation if circumstances suggest travel.
The court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the incident constituted an ‘untoward incident’ under the Railways Act, thus entitling the claimants to compensation.
The absence of a valid ticket does not negate the status of a bona fide passenger, and the Railway Administration must prove any exceptions to liability under the Railways Act.
Strict liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act mandates compensation for untoward incidents involving bona fide passengers, regardless of negligence claims or absence of tickets.
The court ruled that an accidental falling of a bona fide passenger from a train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, mandating strict liability for compensation, irrespective o....
The initial burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish a deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, which can shift to the railways upon presenting relevant evidence.
The burden of proof lies with claimants to establish the deceased as a bona fide passenger and that the death resulted from an untoward incident under the Railways Act, which was not met in this case....
Point of Law : Mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing....
The absence of a ticket does not negate a claim for compensation if the deceased is proven to be a bona fide passenger, and death from falling from a train is classified as an untoward incident under....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
