Injury claims under the Railways Act require broader interpretations of 'untoward incidents' where negligence does not negate entitlement to compensation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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 07.12.2017 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 injuries sustained by him was dismissed.

2. Background facts :-

The appellant claims that on 06.02.2012, the appellant and his friend by name Mangesh Neware, after purchasing the journey ticket, boarded train no. 18474 Dn Jodhpuru – Puri Express to go to Raipur. It is stated that while travelling by the said train, when the train was passing through Dongargarh Railway Station, due to sudden jerk, he fell from moving train. He was rolled over by the wheels of the train. His friend jumped from the train to save him. The appellant sustained severe injuries. In the hospital, his left leg below knee was amputated. Similarly his right foot was also amputated.

It is stated that the journey ticket was lost in the accident.

3. The respondent-Railway filed written statement and opposed the claim. According to the Railway, the appellant and his friend were travelling by Jodhpuri-Puri Express, which had no scheduled halt at Dongargarh Railway Station. In order to get down at Dongargarh, they jumped from the running train. They sustained injuries. The appellant sustained serious injuries. According to the Railway, the injuries sustained were due to criminal negligence of the appellant. The injuries were not sustained in an untoward incident. It was further stated that the journey ticket was not found. The injured was not a bona fide passenger.

4. The parties have adduced evidence before the Tribunal. Learned Member of the Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, found that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the basic facts pleaded by the appellant and therefore, the claim was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the appellant is before this Court in appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. R. S. Suryawanshi, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. A. S. Athalye, 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 injured was a bona fide passenger travelling by the train in question with valid journey ticket ?

ii] Whether the injured sustained injury in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 ?

7. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant himself stepped into the witness box and narrated the relevant facts related to the accident and loss of journey ticket. Learned advocate submitted that in this case, the spot panchanama has not been placed on record. Learned advocate submitted that the record is silent about the date of drawing of spot panchanama or actual drawing of the spot panchanama. Learned advocate pointed out that from the spot of the incident, the appellant was shifted to the hospital. He had sustained injuries to his legs. Learned advocate pointed out that the record of the investigation is silent as to what happened to the clothes of the injured when he was admitted in the hospital. Learned advocate submitted that the facts stated in his affidavit of examination-in-chief are sufficient to discharge the initial burden that he was a bona fide passenger. As far as the nature of the incident is concerned, learned advocate submitted that the appellant has placed on record his affidavit and narr