Liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act is strict and no evidence of negligence is required once an untoward incident is established involving a bona fide passenger.

Judgment :

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in OA No. 289 of 2016, which dismissed the claim application for compensation arising out of the death alleged to have occurred in an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989.

ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 18.02.2016, the deceased Shri Kumar Manta was travelling from Bangalore Cant to Guwahati on the strength of valid journey ticket by the Guwahati SF Express.

(ii) During the course of the journey the compartment was overcrowded, and due to sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and the push and pull of passengers, the deceased lost his balance, fell from the running train in between Soro and Balasore Railway Station, as a result of which he succumbed to injuries and died on the spot.

(iii) The appellants, thereafter, instituted Original Application No. 289 of 2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity), seeking compensation under Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT , on account of the death of the deceased, allegedly occasioned by an “untoward incident”.

(iv) On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed five issues for consideration and, upon detailed examination, concluded that the victim died due to his own negligence and was not a bona fide passenger. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed.

(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.01.2020passed in O.A. No. 289of 2016 by the learned Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the Appellants preferred this appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Appellants submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased, is against the weight of the evidence on record. It is contended that the impugned judgment suffers from improper appreciation of material facts and is bad in law. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside.

(ii) At the very threshold, it is imperative to delineate the statutory framework governing the liability of the Railway Administration. Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT embodies a principle of strict (no- fault) liability, mandating compensation once it is established that the death or injury has resulted from an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act. The liability is absolute, subject only to the limited statutory exceptions of suicide, attempted suicide, self- inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural causes or disease. Significantly, negligence—however gross—does not constitute an exception under the statutory scheme. This legal position now stands authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008) 9 SCC 527 wherein it was held that the element of fault or negligence is wholly immaterial for determining entitlement to compensation under this no-fault liability framework.

(iii) On the issue of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal appears to have laid undue and erroneous emphasis upon the non-production of a valid travel ticket. The law on this point now stands conclusively cryst