SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(All) 230

AMITAVA LALA AND SHISHIR KUMAR, JJ.
Union of India
Versus
Vidyawati and Ors.
First Appeal No. 275 of 2008
Decided On : 29-1-2008.

Advocates Appeared:
Govind Saran, for Appellant

The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation for bona fide passengers in case of untoward incidents, emphasizing the distinction between untoward incident and self-inflicted untoward incident, and highlighting the responsibilities of the Railways in ensuring passenger safety.

Headnote:

Railway Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, Section 123, Railways Act, 1989, Section 124-A - The court discussed the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989, particularly focusing on the definition of 'untoward incident' and the entitlement to compensation in case of accidental falling of a passenger from a train. The court emphasized the distinction between untoward incident and self-inflicted untoward incident, and highlighted the responsibilities of the Railways in ensuring passenger safety.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, a police personnel with a valid ticket, fell from a train due to pushing by other passengers. The Railway Claims Tribunal allowed compensation, which was challenged in the appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and entitled to compensation despite falling from the train due to an untoward incident. It rejected the argument that the incident was self-inflicted or that standing on the footboard was a punishable offense.

Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement to compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the Railways Act, particularly in the context of the definition of 'untoward incident' and the responsibilities of the Railways in ensuring passenger safety.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between untoward incident and self-inflicted untoward incident, and highlighted the responsibilities of the Railways in ensuring passenger safety. It also clarified the entitlement to compensation for bona fide passengers in case of untoward incidents.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed without imposing any costs.

Judgement

AMITAVA LALA, J. :- This appeal is arising out of an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, dated 12th October, 2007. By the order impugned the Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-to the claimants on account of death of the deceased. The deceased was a police personnel, who was travelling by train having valid ticket. The Tribunal gave the following finding in coming to the conclusion :-

6.1 Original ticket for journey has been filed. It is for the correct stations and date as per application. Ticket was found from the person of the deceased. Although, respondent stated that its genuineness was to be proved by applicant, tribunal cannot accept this plea. Original ticket was filed on 15-5-2004 and respondent could very well have checked it up to 12-6-07 most dili gently. In absence of any specific defence by respondent, the deceased is held to be a bona fide passenger at the time of untoward incident.

6.2 Deceased fell down from train due to 6 pushing by other passengers who were in large number. Possibly, he could not get a seat to sit and had to stand. Although un comfortable, such journey is undertaken by quite a significant number of passengers overlooking their comfort and convenience, Even fall from footboard at the entrance of coach is an accidental fall because footboard is part of coach. Second issue is allowed i.e. accident in this application was an untoward incident as per Railway Rules for compensation."

2. The appellant contended before this Court that this is a first appeal lies to the High Court under Section 123 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. However, we are not concerned about the maintainability when such lawis available but with the feasibility of admission on merit. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 speaks as follows :-

124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents- When in the course of working of railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident :

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident."

3. The learned counsel contended before this Court that untoward incident means as follows :-

Section 123 (c)" untoward incident" means-

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant since untoward incident includes "the accidental



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top