Death of a bona fide passenger from a moving train fall constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, establishing strict liability for compensation despite negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Appellants in this appeal challenge the order dated 06.01.2020 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. II/245/2016, by which their claim application was rejected.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) On 28 October 2015, the deceased, along with one of his friends, boarded the D.M.O. Train No. 78412 for travel from Nirakarpur to Bhubaneswar.

(ii) On the said date, the train was overcrowded with passengers and, while it commenced its movement, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train owing to a sudden jerk and the heavy rush of passengers.

(iii) The train was thereafter halted, and the deceased was taken to the Railway Hospital at Khurda Road, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained.

(iv) Following the death of the deceased, U.D. Case No. 27 of 2015 was registered by the Government Railway Police Station, Khurda Road. An inquest was conducted, and thereafter the body was sent for post- mortem examination at the District Headquarters Hospital, Khurda. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the final form concluding that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries sustained in the fall from the running train.

(v) The appellants, being the family members of the deceased passenger, filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, seeking compensation from the respondent for the untoward incident. The Railway Claims Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, framed five issues for adjudication and, by order dated 06.01.2020, dismissed the claim application.

(vi) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants have preferred the present 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 impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and bad in law.

(ii) The Appellants submitted that while the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar rightly held that the deceased was travelling with a valid journey ticket and was thus a bona fide passenger, it erred in concluding that the occurrence was not an “untoward incident.”

(iii) The Appellants contended that the finding attributing negligence to the deceased is unsupported by any pleading or evidence on behalf of the respondent and rests merely on conjecture. The Tribunal further erred in accepting the uncorroborated DRM report without examining the officials who prepared it, and in shifting the burden upon the Appellants to disprove its contents.

(iv) The Appellants contended that the law is well settled that once the claimants establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who fell from the running train owing to a sudden jerk and overcrowding, the burden shifts upon the respondent to establish the contrary by cogent evidence, which the respondent failed to discharge.

(v) The Appellants asserted that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a piece of benevolent legislation to be construed liberally so that the dependants of accident victims are not denied relief on technicalities; the impugned order is therefore unsustainable in law.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Respondent contended that t