Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 212
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - AHMEDABAD
Shri Vinay Goel, J
MAMTADEVI W/O RAJKUMAR MANJHI – Appellant
Versus
GM WR – Respondent
OA (II u)/ADI/64/2024
Mr. K.M. Shah, Ld. Counsel for Applicants. Ms. S.V. Parikh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
The court established that an accidental fall from a train constitutes an untoward incident under the Railways Act, entitling dependents to compensation.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 16 - Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 124-A, 125, 123(c)(2) - Compensation claim for death during train journey - Applicants claimed compensation for the death of the deceased due to an untoward incident while traveling on a train. The court found that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the incident fell within the definition of an untoward incident under the Railways Act. The court awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation with interest. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
(B) Bonafide Passenger - Definition and implications - The court emphasized that the deceased was a bonafide passenger despite challenges regarding the validity of the travel ticket, as the evidence supported the claim of accidental fall from the train. (Paras 9, 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Sh. Rajkumar, aged 31, fell from the Bareilly - Bhuj Ala Hazrat Express train on 08.01.2024, resulting in his death. The applicants, being his dependents, sought compensation from the Railway Administration. The incident was contested by the respondent, claiming negligence on the part of the deceased.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the deceased was indeed a bonafide passenger and that the circumstances of the incident qualified as an untoward incident under the Railways Act. The applicants were awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation.
Issues: The main issues included whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether the incident constituted an untoward incident under the Railways Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented, including witness statements and documentation, supported the claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the incident fell within the ambit of an untoward incident, thus entitling the applicants to compensation.
Result: The claim application is allowed, and the Respondent shall pay Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation.
JUDGEMENT
This OA has been filed by five applicants i.e. wife, minor daughter, two minor sons and mother of the deceased under section 16 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section 124-A, 125 &123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 for compensation from Respondent Railway on account of alleged death of Sh. Rajkumar S/o Ashish aged 31 years (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in an alleged untoward incident during alleged train journey, on the ground that they are the dependents of the deceased.
1. Basic details relating to accident as contained and alleged in the Application:-
(a) Date of accident: 08.01.2024.
(b) Person deceased: Sh. Rajkumar S/o Ashish, aged 31 years.
(c) Relationship of the applicants with the deceased: Applicant No. 1 is wife of deceased, Applicant No. 2 is the daughter, Applicants No.3 and No.4 are minor sons and Applicant No.5 is the mother of the deceased.
(d) Train involved and transit details: The deceased was travelling by train no. 14321 named Bareilly – Bhuj Ala Hazrat Express from Delhi Railway Station to Gandhidham Railway Station ticket was from Gaya Railway Station to Gandhidham Railway Station Via Delhi.
(e) Untoward incident narrated: On 08.01.2024 deceased was travelling by train from no. 14321 named Bareilly – Bhuj Ala Hazrat Express from Delhi Railway Station to Gandhidham Railway Station ticket was from Gaya Railway Station to Gandhidham Railway Station Via Delhi in the general compartment. During the course of journey when the said train was running between K.M. Nos. 116/6 and 116/7 between Radhanpur and Piplee Railway Stations, at that time, due to all of a sudden jerk and jolt of the train as well as due to heavy rush and push of the passengers in the passage of the general compartment of the train, deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the train. Due to accidental fall the deceased was dragged with the train and sustained multiple grievous injuries on different parts of the body and died on the spot. Ticket of deceased bearing No.ARA – 56242437 and ARA - 56242438 was recovered from the co-passenger.
(f) Jurisdiction: Place of incident was between K.M. Nos. 116/6 and 116/7 between Radhanpur and Piplee Railway Stations, this Bench of the Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction.
2. Salient features of reply:
a) Averments in reply: In the written statement the respondent has denied the incident as “UNTOWARD INCIDENT”. There is no eyewitness or ACP and no ticket to ascertain how the body of the deceased was lying at the place of incident. The incident may have happened due to deceased carelessness and negligence which amounts to be self -inflicted injury. So the applicants are not entitled to alleged amount of compensation. There are also eye witnesses of the said incident on record. Ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased as such he was not bonafide passenger.
b) Crux of DRM Report:
3. From the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 19.09.2024.
1. Whether the deceased was travelling on a valid Railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?
2. Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to fall from passenger carrying train, suffered injuries and died as a result thereof and the present case is covered under definition of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act,1989 ?
3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed as per Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989?
4. To what Relief?
4. Applicants Evidence: Applicant No.1 appeared on 04.10.2024 but evidence was deferred for clarification on having two Pan Card so Applicant No.1 appeared again and has filed her affidavit as AW/1 on the lines of pleadings set up in O.A. and had been cross-examined by Respondent on 06.12.2024.
5. Respondent Evidence: Respondent has relied upon its DRM Report annexed and documents next thereof.
6. Description of the documents filed by the Applic
