The railway department's responsibility to ensure seat availability and basic amenities for passengers, as well as the consequences of neglecting these responsibilities, formed the central legal principle in the judgment.

J.S.Narang, J.

1. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 25.2.2002, passed by the Tribunal. The claim of the claimant has been granted by making an award of Rs. 2,00,000 and that the interest has been granted with effect from the date of filing of the application.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent- appellant has argued that in fact the claimant has not proved the negligence on the part of the respondent-appellant and that he is liable on account of his own conduct. The claimant admittedly boarded the train but he came out of the compartment at Ludhiana Railway Station and while reboarding the train could not get into the compartment and, therefore, he held himself on the steps of the compartment by catching the handle provided outside the compartment. However, due to pressure of rush of the passengers his hands slipped and he fell down from the train and was badly injured. He had to be hospitalised but on account of the injury suffered, the left leg below knee had to be amputated. Resultantly, he became unfit for any job.

3. The respondent-appellant has not controverted the fact that the claimant did board the train after purchasing the ticket and that there was no light and water in the compartment in which the claimant was travelling. It is at Ludhiana Railway Station, the claimant alighted from the compartment for water and breakfast, etc. The factum of the claimant having slipped has also not been controverted. The plea which has been taken is that the application is not sustainable as it does not fall with the mischief of sections 123, 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 . It is argued that the act, on the part of the claimant is containable under the dictum volenti non fit injuria. The claimant by virtue of his own act and conduct suffered the injury. Thus, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that the aforesaid act fell within the ambit of definition of untoward incident. I am afraid this argument is not sustainable. The respondent-appellant has not been able to show that there was no overcrowding in the train and that the claimant was required to get down at the Railway Station Ludhiana because there was sufficient water available in the compartment. Respondent-appellant has also not been able to show that the passengers commensurate to the seats available in the compartment had boarded the train.

4. In view of the stand taken by the respondent-appellant that the application does not fall within the provisions of sections 123, 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act and that the rest of the averments made by the claimant having been admitted, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the compensation to the claimant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

5. It is a matter of common knowledge that the railway tickets are issued from one station to the other (place of destination) without even having any data as to whether the seats are available in the train for the passenger who is purchasing the ticket. The Department of Railways has never even thought on this aspect that whenever the tickets are to be issued at a railway station for a particular destination asked for by the passenger, the officials at that railway station should have the positive knowledge as to whether the passenger purchasing the ticket would be entitled to occupy a seat in a compartment of the train. The tickets are issued at random without even specifying whether the passenger has to travel by boarding the train on the rooftop or hanging on the steps of the compartment. Be that as it may, the Railway Department cannot be allowed to run away from its responsibility that a human being has to travel and it is not the luggage which is to be carried and dumped. I am sure while transporting the luggage the Railway Department has positive information as to whether the particular luggage can be accommodated in the rail car or not. So far as a human being is concerned, could not care less attitude has been adopted. Is it not