Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 651
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI
Shri Alok Upasani, J
Khadar Vali Sayad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Claim Application No: OA (II U) / MCC / 248 / 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N. R. Shukla, Mr. Kuldip Singh
For the Respondents: Ms. Rupali Nayak
Railway administration is liable to compensate for deaths resulting from untoward incidents, even if passengers are found negligent.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 16 - Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A - Claim for compensation due to death in an alleged untoward incident occurring during train travel - The deceased fell from a local train due to a push from other passengers - Court examined issues of the deceased's status as a bonafide passenger and the cause of death - Deceased was affirmed as a bonafide passenger, despite the absence of a ticket - Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded, reflecting the strict liability principle under the Railways Act. (Paras 4, 22)
(B) Ultimate Liability of Railway Administration - The railway administration is liable to pay compensation regardless of any negligence unless within certain exceptions outlined in Section 124-A - Claimants must only demonstrate the circumstances of the passenger's falling to establish liability. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, a laborer travelling from Chembur to Andheri, fell from a local train due to crowd pressure, sustaining serious injuries and later dying in the hospital - Claimants (parents and wife) sought compensation from the railway administration.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the death was an untoward incident under the Railways Act and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger despite the lack of a recovered ticket.
Issues: The main issues were whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether the applicants proved the conditions for compensation under the Railways Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that negligence on the part of the deceased does not exempt the railway from compensation obligations; the absence of a ticket does not negate the claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.
Result: Claim Application allowed; compensation awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. This Claim Application is filed by the Applicants, under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987, read with Section 123 (c) (2) & Section 124 - A of the Railways Act , 1989, for compensation on account of death of Khasim Mabu S/o Khadar Vali (hereinafter referred as deceased), in an alleged untoward incident occurred on 30.05.2016. The Applicants claim that they being the parents and wife, are the dependents of the deceased Khasim Mabu S/o Khadar Vali.
The factual matrix of the matter in nut-shell is as below:
2. It is stated that the deceased, Khasim Mabu S/o Khadar Vali, a resident of District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, was a labourer. It is alleged that on 30.05.2016, he was travelling by local train along with his Cousin. At about 09.40 hours, when the said local train reached between Kurla and Chunabhatti railway station, due to sudden push from other passengers, in the compartment, Khasim Mabu S/o Khadar Vali accidentally fell down from the running local train and sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to Sion Hospital, Mumbai, for medical treatment, wherein he was declared dead. It is further alleged that the deceased, on the relevant day was travelling on the strength of a second class railway ticket Ex. Chembur to Andheri railway station but said ticket was lost in the incident. It is therefore contended that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and had died in an untoward incident.
3. In response to notice, Respondent Railway Authority appeared and opposed the Claim Application. The Respondent filed written statement and also produced on record the DRM report pertaining to investigation conducted by Inspector RPF/Wadala Road, accompanied with other relevant documents. The DRM report reflects that on 30.05.2016 at about 10.15 hours, SM/Chunabhatti issued a memo to GRP/Wadala Road, PC-1815, Shri. Jadhav, that one unknown person, aged about 18 years has been injured between Kurla and Chunabhatti railway station, near KM. No. 13/13. The GRP attended the site and took the victim to Sion Hospital for medical treatment, wherein he was declared dead. Thereafter, PSI, Shri. Gite of Wadala Road railway police station conducted the inquest panchnama at Sion Hospital, recorded the statement of Cousin of the deceased, Shaikh Bazi Akbar Ali and registered a case vide ADR No. 60/2016 under Sec. 174 of Cr. PC. dated 30.05.2016. The GRP/Wadala Road has mentioned in the inquest panchnama, that the victim had fallen down from local train, sustained serious injuries and died. The GRP has not mentioned about the recovery of any railway ticket/pass, from the possession of the deceased, in their related documents and also no copy of ticket or pass is available with the GRP/Wadala Road’s documents. Hence the deceased cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger.
The SM/Chunabhatti has not mentioned any cause of incident in his related documents but the GRP has mentioned in the inquest panchnama that the deceased had fallen down from local train, sustained serious injuries and died. However, there is no eye- witness to the incident. The alleged incident occurred due to the deceased’s own negligence while travelling on the footboard/near the door of running local train, which is an offence punishable under Sec. 137 and 156 of Railways Act , 1989. Therefore, the railway administration cannot be held responsible for the negligence on part of the deceased and as such the Applicants cannot be compensated.
4. In view of aforesaid pleadings and documents produced on record, this Tribunal framed the following Issues on 17.06.2021, for just and proper adjudication of Claim Application on merit within ambit of law.
1. Whether the deceased was travelling on valid railway ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question, at the relevant time?
2. Whether the Applicants prove that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident as alleged in the Claim Application and the present case is covered under S
