IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a bona fide passenger's negligence does not preclude entitlement to compensation for an untoward incident under the Indian Railways Act.

JUDGMENT :

Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.

This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 28th June, 2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (for short “the Tribunal”) in Case No. OA-IIu/BPL/214/2017, dismissing the claim of the appellants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrived before the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case, as summarized in the impugned judgment as extracted below.

4. In the present petition Santosh Sahu was travelling on 6-4-2017 by Train No. 16031 Andaman Express from Betul to Bhopal after having purchased a second class general ticket bearing No. AE-675471373 on the fateful day. When the train reached near Habibganj Station, the deceased slipped and fell from the moving train due to sudden jerk while the train passing through the Habibganj Station as a result both his legs were cut of by the train and sustained severe injuries and shifted to Hospital, where during treatment, he succumbed to injuries. It is submitted that untoward incident happened due to sole negligence of the respondent/Railways, therefore, Railways is liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants for an untoward incident as the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train. It is submitted that respondent/Railways has not produced any evidence or eye witnesses to prove that the injuries sustained by the deceased was not a result of an untoward incident or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

5. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) before the Tribunal on account of the death of their son in an “untoward incident” occurred on 6-4-2017 as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1989”).

6. The respondent- Railway filed the written statement and opposed the claim of the appellants. Though, the deceased was travelling in a train No. 16031 Andaman Express as a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident. However, the incident occurred near Habibganj station, resulting the own negligence of the deceased that he made an attempt to de-board from the moving train, for which, he himself was responsible. The incident squarely falls under the category of “self inflicted injury” at the time of the accident, other passengers who reportedly advised the deceased against de-boarding and jumping from the moving train, he disregarded their warnings and jumped from the running train as his friend (Avinash Singh) reached and waiting in Habibganj Railway Station, therefore, conduct of the deceased falls under section 124-A sub-clause (b) and (c) of the Act of 1989, for which, the Railways Administration is not liable to pay compensation and, prays to dismiss the claim.

7. In view of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the time of occurrence of the alleged untoward incident ?

2. Whether the death of deceased caused due to the said alleged untoward incident, as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 ?

3. Whether the respondent/Railway Administration is protected under the section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants ?

4. Whether the applicants are the legal dependents of the deceased to claim receive the compensation, if any, granted ? who else are the dependents ?

5. Relief and cost ?

8. In order to establish the claim of the appellants at the time of inquiry, Shri Ramkishore Sahu, who is the father of the deceased, examined as AW-1 and exhibits A-1 to A-11 were got marked on behalf of the appellants. Ravi Shankar points-man of Habibganj station, informed the incident examined as RW-1 and marked exhibits-R/1 (DRM report) on behalf of the respondent/Railway.

9. On appreciation of evidence of AW-1 and placing reliance on exhibits A-1 to A-11 and the DRM’s report Ex.R-1 d