Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1220
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
G. A. SANAP, J
DILIPKUMAR S/O ARJUNPRASAD – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY MUMBAI – Respondent
FA 47 / 2024
Mr. D. S. Lambat, Advocate for the appellants; Ms. N. G. Choube, Advocate for the respondent
Injuries sustained by a bona fide passenger falling from a moving train constitute an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, entitling compensation regardless of negligence.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123 and 124-A - Appeal against dismissal of claim for compensation due to injuries sustained in an untoward incident - Appellant was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket - Incident occurred due to a sudden jerk while washing hands, leading to amputation of left leg - Tribunal failed to appreciate evidence and relevant law. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 14)
(B) No Fault Theory - Liability of the Railway is based on strict liability; negligence of the victim cannot be a defense in claims for compensation under this theory. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellant sustained serious injuries, including amputation of his left leg, after falling from a moving train at Jalgaon Railway Station where the train had no scheduled halt. The claim for compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal on grounds of negligence.
Findings of Court:
The appellant was a bona fide passenger, and the injuries sustained were in an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act. The Tribunal's dismissal of the claim was erroneous.
Issues: Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger and whether the injuries were sustained in an untoward incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant was a bona fide passenger and that the injuries sustained from falling off a moving train constituted an untoward incident, entitling him to compensation under the no fault theory.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded with interest.
1. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1987” for short), challenge is to the judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the claim filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 16 of the Act of 1987 for compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was dismissed.
2. BACKGROUND FACTS :-
The appellant claims that on 01.01.2020, after purchasing a journey ticket, he boarded Train No. 12542 / LTT – Gorakhpur Express from LTT (Lokmanya Tilak Terminus) Mumbai to go to Bhusaval. The incident occurred at Jalgaon Railway Station. It is stated that at Jalgaon Railway Station, the train had no scheduled halt. He had come to the wash basin of the compartment to wash his hands. At that time there was a sudden jerk to the train and he fell from the running train on platform no.3 at Jalgaon Railway Station. He sustained serious injury. His left leg has been amputated. He was a bona fide passenger. The injury sustained by the appellant was in an untoward incident.
3. The respondent-Railway filed written statement and opposed the claim. It was contended that the injured was not a bona fide passenger. The injuries sustained by him were not in an untoward incident. The injured was negligent. He did not take proper care while travelling by the said train. The injuries sustained by him were self-inflicted injuries. The appellant is not entitled to get compensation.
4. The appellant examined himself as sole witness. The respondent- Railway has examined one witness. Learned Member of the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence found that there was no substance in the claim and ultimately dismissed the claim. The appellant is before this Court in appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. D. S. Lambat, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. N. G. Choube, learned advocate for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.
6. In the facts and circumstances, following points fall for my determination :-
i] Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger travelling by the train in question with valid journey ticket ?
ii] Whether the appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 ?
7. Mr. Lambat, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the journey ticket recovered from the possession of the appellant was a valid journey ticket. Learned advocate submitted that learned Member of the Tribunal has not recorded a categorical finding on this issue. Learned advocate submitted that as far as the injury in an untoward incident is concerned, learned Member of the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the material on record as well as the provisions of law. Learned advocate submitted that in this case, learned Member of the Tribunal was not right in invoking the Proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1989”) to deny compensation. Learned advocate submitted that the appellant in his evidence has placed on record the first hand account of incident and the same is sufficient to prove that he fell from a moving train from the off-side at Jalgaon Railway Station and sustained injury. Learned advocate submitted that the defence of negligence or contributory negligence is not available in such a claim inasmuch as the liability is based on ‘No Fault Theory”.
8. Learned advocate for the respondent-Railway, in short, supported the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Learned advocate submitted that the appellant is a resident of Jalgaon. Learned advocate submitted that though the ticket was valid for journey from LTT Mumbai to Bhusaval, the injured fell from a moving train while de-boarding the train at Jalgaon Railway Station from the off-side. Learned advocate submitted that therefore, learned Member of the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim.
9. Perusa
