The principle of strict liability applies to railway incidents, ensuring compensation for injuries regardless of fault, with the burden of proof shifting to the Railways once a claimant establishes ticket purchase.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

The appeal has been preferred by the Applicant- Joginder Thakur.

2. Pleaded case of the claimant/appellant is that on 24.09.2013 when the appellant was travelling from Darbhanga to Jagadhri, when the train reached near Jagadhri Railway Station, due to push of passengers, the appellant got imbalanced; fell down from the train and sustained injuries. The fall from the train resulted in partial amputation of right foot of the appellant besides implanting of iron rod in left arm and head injury.

3. The respondent/Railways contested the claim of the claimant on the ground that he was neither a bonafide passenger of the train as he was not travelling in the train on that day nor any such incident, within the meaning of Section 124A of Railways Act took place on 24.09.2013 near Jagadhri Railway Station.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the injured/applicant was a bonafide passenger of train at the time of incident?

2. Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) read with Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act?

3. What are the scheduled and non-scheduled injuries sustained by the applicant-injured.

4. Relief.

5. Tribunal rejecting the claim petition holding that no evidence was produced by the claimant to prove that he was having a valid train ticket and thus, the claimant being not a bonafide passenger, he cannot maintain the claim petition.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has misread the evidence on record. Applicant/claimant appeared as AW-1 and has also placed on record the journey ticket as Ex. A-4 which was issued on 23.09.2013 for a journey from Darbhanga to Jagadhri.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records of the case.

8. Section 124A deals with compensation on account of untoward incident. The said provision came on the statute by way of Railways Amendment Act, 28 of 1994. Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Menon vs. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714 spelling out the purpose and the import of the provision observed as under:

“13. Appellant’s claim for the compensation was based on Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). The said Section itself was introduced as per Railway (Amendment) Act 28 of 1994. The Section provided for awarding compensation to victims of any “untoward incident” which occurs in the course of working of a railway. The expression “untoward incident” was alien to Railway Act before Parliament inserted such an expression in the statute as per the Amendment Act 28 of 1994. Prior to it the Railways could have granted compensation only to the victims of “Accident”. As the definition of accident in the Act did not embrace instances of other types of disasters which frequently happened during train journeys, the Parliament in its wisdom, decision to insert a new category of disasters, both man-made and otherwise, to be the causes of action for claiming compensation.

14. It was in compliance of the aforesaid intention of the Parliament that the category “untoward incident” was included by defining its contours in section 123 of the Act. The Sections consists of two segments. In the first segment acts such as terrorists acts, riotous attacks, robbery and dacoity which visit the passengers in the train as well as those who wait within the precincts of Railway Station are included. In the second segment, which is the relevant part for the purpose of this case, is included “the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.”

15. Now we have to see Section 124A which is the provision imposing liability on the Railway Administration to pay compensation to the victims of untoward incidents. Its proviso excuses from its purview persons who committed or attempted to commit suicide, persons who inflicted injury by self, and those who committed criminal act or acts done in a state of intoxication or insanity and also