A railway employee on duty is entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act even if the incident is attributed to their negligence, as per the no-fault liability principle.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present First Appeal (FAO) has been filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No. 205 of 2017.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

i. The husband of the appellant was working as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force at Khurda Road Railway Station in the year 1996.

ii. On 22.08.1996, he was deployed near the Central Cabin of Khurda Road Railway Station.

iii. While on duty, he slipped due to heavy rain and was struck by a moving train, as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

iv. The appellant filed Original Application No. 205 of 2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench. The said application was dismissed by order dated 01.01.2019 on the ground that the deceased was not on duty, as the claimant had failed to produce the command certificate relating to his duty.

v. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court, which was registered as F.A.O. No. 926 of 2019. The said appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the case from the proper perspective.

vi. Upon remand and after further hearing, the Tribunal again dismissed the Original Application on the ground that the incident did not constitute an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989.

vii. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No. 205 of 2017, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

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

i. The appellant contended that the judgment dated 13.02.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 205 of 2017 is vitiated by non- consideration and improper evaluation of the documents and evidence on record and is therefore unsustainable in law.

ii. The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to test the veracity of the documents and the facts placed on record by the appellant and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

iii. The appellant asserted that the learned Tribunal admitted unproved documents and facts which were not even the stand of the respondent, who had admitted that the deceased met with an accident during the course of duty.

iv. The appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the incident suffered by the deceased was an untoward incident even though the respondent in its documents, including the D.R.M. report, stated that the deceased was dashed against a running train due to heavy rain and slipping of his foot.

v. The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal dismissed the case on extraneous grounds without appreciating the documents and evidence adduced by the appellant.

vi. The appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal misconceived the facts in holding that the deceased crossing the line amounted to a criminal act and was due to his own negligence.

vii. The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal did not consider the inquest report