Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 imposes strict liability on Railways for deaths from untoward incidents, with no requirement for proving negligence or production of a ticket to establish bona fide passengership.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in OA No. 38 of 2017, 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.

1. ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE

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

(i) On 14.01.2017, the deceased Sambhu Verma was travelling from Jharsuguda to Brundamal Railway Station, by Jharsuguda- Sambalpur DMU Passenger Train, due to push and pull of co- passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train in between Jharsuguda to Jharsuguda Road Railway Station, as a result he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was a bona fide passenger and the ticket was lost in the accident.

(ii) The GRPS, Sambalpur registered UD Case No. 03 of 2017 and investigated into the matter. The Police, during the inquest recorded cause of death of the deceased to be fall down from running train, confirmed by final report, post-mortem report and other papers.

(iii) The appellants, thereafter, instituted Original Application No. 38 of 2017 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 , 1989, 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 adjudication, 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 01.10.2019 passed in O.A. No. 38 of 2017 by the learned Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the Appellants preferred this appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

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 evidences on record, suffers from misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.

(ii) At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework. Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT enacts a regime of strict liability. Once it is established that death or injury has occurred as a result of an ‘untoward incident’, the Railway Administration is bound to pay compensation, unless the case falls within the narrowly defined exceptions of suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause. Negligence, even gross negligence, is not among these exceptions. This position was firmly settled in Union of India vrs. Prabhakuran Vijaya Kumar , (2008) 9 SCC 527 where the Supreme Court held that fault or negligence is irrelevant under the no-fault scheme of Section 124A.

(iii) On the question of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the non-production of a ticket. The law on this issue stands settled in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2018) 3 SCC 319 wherein the Supreme Court recognised that in train accident cases, tickets are frequently lost, misplaced, or destroyed during the incident. It was held tha