Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Amitava Lala, A.P.Sahi
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
VIRENDRA BHARTI
Decided On : 21 April 2009
First Appeal From Order No. 2525 of 2008
Railways Act - Compensation for untoward incident - Interpretation of bonafide passenger - Liability of railway authorities
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a passenger in an untoward incident while traveling by train. The railway authorities argued that the nature of the injury was self-inflicted, while the claimants argued that it was an untoward incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the nature of the journey in unreserved compartments exposed passengers to risks for which the railway authorities were responsible. The court found that the deceased's actions did not amount to self-inflicted injury and upheld the tribunal's decision to award compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the incident was a self-inflicted injury or an untoward incident, and the liability of the railway authorities in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between reserved and unreserved compartments, highlighting the increased risks faced by passengers in unreserved compartments and the responsibility of railway authorities. It held that unless it was proved beyond doubt that the passenger was careless, the incident could not be considered self-inflicted injury.
Final Decision: The court upheld the tribunal's decision to award compensation to the claimants and ruled that the compensation amount would carry simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of the tribunal's order till the payment.
This appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 16th May, 2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench in Application No. OA/ii/279/02deos (Shri Virendra Bharti and another Vs. Union of India), whereby the tribunal allowed the claim petition of the respondents/claimants and awarded compensation to a tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest on account of death of deceased Arun Kumar Bharti in an untoward incident on 23rd September, 2001.
2. There is no dispute with regard to nature of accident resulting in death of the deceased. From the evidences and the submissions of the contesting parties, it appears that the deceased was travelling by train having valid ticket but his body was leaning out of the coach when struck against a signal pole of the railway, as a result whereof he fell down from the train and expired. Parents of the deceased are the claimants. The real controversy is whether the accident is self-inflicted injury or untoward incident. The tribunal held that the case of the respondents/claimants is totally covered by Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 123 (c) of the said Act speaks about untoward incident when Section 124-A speaks about the compensation on account of untoward incident. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) has already held in a judgement reported in AIR 2008 Allahabad 124 (Union of India Vs. Vidyawati and others) that the first test in such circumstance would be whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not. In this case, there is no doubt that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. To substantiate the word bonafide we hold and say that in our country there is a difference between reserved compartments and unreserved compartments. Facilities
of reserved compartments can not be equated with the unreserved compartments at all. In the cases of reserved compartments, the seats of the valid ticket holders are reserved. Journey is comfortable. Identities are known. Normally, there is no chance of leaning out of the door by any one. If it happens, self-inflicted injury or criminal act can not be ruled out and as such accurate analysis of evidence only rule out such possibility. But in the cases of unreserved compartments there is no such scope of identification. Who will come first, he will occupy the seat. Journey is not comfortable. If the seats are not available, passengers are compelled to stand in the coach and when rush is more, passengers are compelled to stand even on a foot-board. Sometimes their bodies are leaning from the doors or open windows. On the other hand, railway authorities are issuing tickets irrespective of accommodations at their peril. Therefore, railway authorities are obviously responsible for the cause.
3. The railway is an essential means of transport for the general people. Even today number of trains and number of people is mismatching. Therefore, many passengers, in spite of having valid tickets, are compelled to travel by the trains at their own risk and responsibility, which can not be construed as self- inflicted act. Standing on the foot-board or leaning body of a passenger from the railway compartment is such type of common knowledge that it hardly requires any evidence or proof.
4. In this particular case, a plea has been taken by the railway authorities that as because the body of the deceased was leaning out from the compartment, therefore, the nature of injury is self-inflicted injury but not an untoward incident. However, the tribunal held that the deceased acted carelessly which, however, can not be said to be self-inflicted injury. Reasoning of the tribunal may not be clear or categorical but the import of the tribunal to draw a finding can not be said to be incorrect. Tribunal wanted to say that a journey of such nature may be at the risk and responsibility of the passenger but it can not be said to be self-inflicted. In further, we are of the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
