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

2020 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 148

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.G. Giratkar, J
Megha w/o. Vijay Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Through the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CSTM – Respondent
First Appeal No.123 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms Gayatri Diwe, Mr.P.R.Agrawal
For the Respondents: Mr.N.P.Lambat

A passenger's death following a fall from a train is an untoward incident, and losing a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status, placing liability on the Railway.

Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Accident due to fall from train - Claim for compensation denied on grounds of alleged lack of bona fide status as passenger - Evidence of friend showing ticket purchase was not sufficient to establish bona fide passenger status due to absence of ticket found post-incident. (Paras 1-22)

(B) Determination of negligence - Negligence of deceased while travelling was established through investigation report highlighting standing near open door of train - However, this negligence cannot absolve the railway of liability under Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989, which defines untoward incidents. (Paras 21-24)

Facts of the case:
Deceased fell from a train under crowded conditions while standing near the doorway; the incident resulted in his death, prompting parents to seek compensation. Evidence indicated he had a journey ticket, allegedly lost during the incident.

Findings of Court:
The investigation corroborated the claim of the deceased being a bona fide passenger and established that he fell from the train due to negligence, but liability rests with the Railway for compensation.

Issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger whose death was caused by an untoward incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that absence of a ticket post-accident does not negate the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, and negligence does not eliminate Railway's liability for untoward incidents.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded to appellants.

Table of Content
1. define the nature of the appeal and outline pertinent facts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. present arguments from both parties regarding the deceased's passenger status. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. highlight court observations on evidence provided. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. establish connections between prior cases and ongoing case issues. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. summarize the findings of court and application of principles. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. assess the impact of the evidence on the final ruling. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. discuss the conclusion regarding liability and negligence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. state the final verdict regarding compensation awarded. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 .

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarised as under :

On 29th January, 2014, by an unknown train, deceased Akash s/o. Vijayrao Thakur was travelling from Nagpur to Chandur Railway station in order to go to his home at Tiwsa. As the compartment of the train was overcrowded, the deceased was standing near the door of the compartment and while travelling, he fell down from the running train, due to sudden jerk near Borkhedi Railway Station in front of signal KM No.802/5. The deceased died on the spot. The deceased was travelling in the train with proper journey ticket purchased by his friend. Information was given by Loco Pilot to the Station Master, Borkhedi Railway Station. On his information, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama etc. were prepared. The body of deceased was cut into pieces. The appellants, the parents of deceased filed claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal praying to grant compensation.

3. The respondent filed its Written Statement. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues. Appellant no.2 Vijay Uttamrao Thakur examined himself and witness Rahul Vijayrao Nagdevte. The respondent examined Dy. S.S. Borkhedi Railway Station Shri Pradip Dewaji Borkar. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there was no untoward incident, as claimed. Hence, this appeal.

4. Heard Ms Gayatri Diwe, learned Counsel holding for Mr.P.R.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellants. She has submitted that the evidence of witness Rahul Nagdevte shows that he was friend of deceased. The deceased had come to Nagpur. On 29th January, 2014, he along with the deceased went to Nagpur Railway Station. He himself purchased the journey ticket of deceased and handed over to him. Thereafter, he returned back. He has stated that the compartment in which the deceased was travelling was over-crowded. The deceased was standing in the door way of the coach. He came to know about the accident.

5. Mr.N.P.Lambat, learned Counsel vehemently argued that the Railway Claims Tribunal has minutely verified the documents and has come to proper conclusion that the deceased might have committed suicide. No journey ticket was found on the spot of incident. He was not a bona fide passenger. Learned Counsel has submitted that if the deceased would have fallen from the running train, he would have been thrown by the side of the track. He would not come under the wheel of train. Body was cut into pieces. This itself shows that he was ran over by train. Therefore, it is not an untoward incident. In support of his submission, Mr.Lambat, learned Counsel has pointed out the following decisions :

a. Kamrunnissa .vs. Union of India , Special Leave Petition ( C) No.26625/2015.

b. Umadevi wd/o. Kiran Yennam and Others .vs. Union of India , 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 120.

c. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Smt.Dharambiri Devi and Others .vs. the Ministry of Railway and another, FAO No.357 of 2007, dt.13.3.2008,.

d. Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.666 of 2018, Bhuvaneshwar s/o. Bapurao Deulkar and another .vs. Union of India.

e. Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.137 of 2015, Smt. Sunita wd/o. Gyaneshwar Upase and Others .vs. U

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