Railway authorities are strictly liable for passenger deaths during travel, with no need to establish fault, ensuring protection under beneficial legislation.

1. This F.A.O. is an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 filed against the judgment dated 04.04.2024 passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. 181 of 2007 wherein the Learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the claim petition filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 .

I. ACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. As per the original claim petition, on the date of the incident i.e. on 25.12.2006, the deceased Sarbeswar Swain was travelling from Allahabad to Cuttack by Train No. 12816, Neelachal Express and in the course of his journey, on the night of 25.12.2006, the deceased accidentally fell down inside the compartment due to a sudden jolt and was immediately rendered unconscious. It is alleged that as a result of the same he sustained grievous injuries to his brain along with other injuries to his person.

3. It is stated that after the incident, the injured was immediately shifted to the nearest Gaya Government Hospital where, in the course of his treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 27.12.2006.

4. The present Petitioner, being the legal heir of the deceased, preferred the Claim Petition on 27.8.2007 seeking a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with cost and interest at 12% p.a. due to premature death of the deceased caused by the alleged rash, negligent and irresponsible driving of the driver of the offending Train No. 2816.

5. Vide judgment dated 12.12.2014, the Ld. Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the claim petition on the ground that the death of the deceased was caused due to cardiac arrest. Aggrieved, the present Appellant had approached this Court in F.A.O. No. 273 of 2015. This Court had vide its judgment and order dated 5.12.2023 in F.A.O. No. 273 of 2015 observed that the post-mortem report of ANMMC Hospital, Gaya reveals that the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage, not cardiac arrest. Accordingly, this Court was pleased to set aside the findings of the Ld. Tribunal and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, particularly whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation given the cause of death is now revealed to be something entirely different.

6. Thereafter, O.A. 181/2007 was taken up afresh by the Ld. Tribunal. Vide the impugned judgment, the Ld. Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the claim application on the following considerations, reproduced hereinunder for the sake of convenience:

“7.3. … Considering that the Post Mortem Examination Reports has attributed the cause of death to be due to shock and hemorrhage, the question arises as to whether such condition of the deceased had arisen out of any plausible fall inside the train compartment due to sudden acceleration or deceleration with sudden application of brakes. There is no evidence at all with regard to such a thing occurring. We also take note of the fact that a possible sudden jerk would have impacted all passengers not only of that particular compartment but also in other compartments of the train. There are absolutely no reports on record of any such thing occurring. In absence of any such evidence, it cannot be inferred that the shock and hemorrhage could have caused due to any sudden jerk which resulted in a possible fall inside the compartment and consequential impact on the deceased. Moreover, assuming for a while that the deceased allegedly fell inside the train and subsequently died but the said incident does not cover under section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act 1989 which stipulates that “The accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. The case at hand, is not a case of fall from a