Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 1259
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - RANCHI
Gyan Prakash Tewari, Judicial Member, Prasanta Kumar Sahu, Technical Member
Deepak Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA(IIU)/RNC/8/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Umesh Prasad Mandal, Priya Kumari
For the Respondents: Sudhir Kumar Srivastava
Panic-driven evacuation attempts due to a perceived emergency, such as a fire, resulting in death by being struck by a passing train, constitute an untoward incident involving a passenger, rendering the railway administration liable to pay compensation under the rule of liberal construction of welfare legislation.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c)(2), 124 - Untoward incident - Death by run-over - Compensation - Panic-induced escape from train due to rumour of fire resulting in being struck by another train constitutes an accident to a part of the train carrying passengers - Railway administration is liable to pay compensation regardless of wrongful act or neglect - Reaction of passengers to fire rumour is a natural response and does not amount to self-inflicted injury. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20)
(B) Interpretation of statutes - Beneficent legislation - In case of legislation meant for welfare, a liberal construction favouring the beneficiaries must be adopted. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The deceased passenger was travelling in a train when a rumour of fire caused mass panic. While attempting to escape or deboard the stationary train, the deceased encountered another train on the adjacent line and was fatally struck. The dependants sought compensation for the death in an untoward incident. The railway administration contested the claim, arguing it was a case of self-inflicted injury and that the incident did not qualify as an accident under the applicable law as no actual fire occurred.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Railway administration failed to adequately caution passengers about the movement of another train on the adjacent line, and the panic-induced evacuation was a natural response to the situation. Since the dependants' relationship to the deceased was established and undisputed, they are entitled to compensation as per the notification under the relevant legislation.
Issues: Whether the death of the passenger due to running over by a train while attempting to escape an alleged fire in the coach constitutes an untoward incident and whether the dependants are entitled to seek compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: An incident where passengers are driven to escape a train due to a rumour of fire and are subsequently struck by another train is covered under the definition of an accident to a part of the train carrying passengers. The principle of liberal interpretation of welfare legislation requires that doubts regarding the nature of the emergency be resolved in favour of the claimants.
Result: Claim application allowed; compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of 'untoward incident' and 'accident' under the railways act, excluding self-inflicted injury. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 2. verification of legal dependency and entitlement of the claimants. (Para 21) |
| 3. quantum of compensation, interest, and procedural distribution safeguards for minors and beneficiaries. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGEMENT
PRASANTA KUMAR SAHU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
01. This claim application has been filed by the Applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) with 12% interest from the Respondents Railway for the death of Manju Devi hereinafter referred to as "the deceased" in an alleged untoward incident on 14.06.2024.
Brief facts of the case:-
02. As per claim application, the deceased Manju Devi, aged about 38 years, a house wife, was travelling along with her brother-in-law Jaiprakash Kumar alias Prakash Kumar from Ranchi to Sasaram by Ranchi Sasaram Intercity Express Train No.18635 in a 2nd class general coach on 14.06.2024 with a valid journey ticket no.34992199 for two adults. Enroute while the said train was standing at Kumandih railway station, some unknown passengers suddenly cried out that there was fire in the train. Hearing about the fire, some passengers of the train panicked and started getting down from the train. In the meantime a DN Goods Train namely Long Hole bearing loco No.41158/7263 was passing through the Kumandih railway station, and the said train crushed the deceased Manju Devi, who died on the spot. The journey ticket that was received from the co-passenger was handed over to SHO/GRP/Barkakana on 05.07.2024 by the husband of the deceased. Parents of the deceased are not alive. Hence, Deepak Prasad alias Dipak Prasad - husband, Prince Raj and Sumit Raj - sons, Somi Kumari and Simran Kumari - daughters of the deceased, as dependents, have filed this claim application for compensation from the Respondents railway.
03. Respondent's reply:- The case has been contested by the Respondents by filing a Written Statement pleading that there is no documentary evidence to prove that she was a bonafide passenger in a train and that the alleged incident occurred due to accidental fall. There is no cogent evidence for the alleged incident. As per DRM's report the deceased got run over by a goods train along with some passengers as rumour about fire was spread by some persons when the train no.18635 was standing at Kumandih railway station. The Respondents pleaded that the incident was a case of 'run-over' by a goods train and hence a self-inflicted injury and the claim application is not maintainable in law before this Hon'ble Tribunal and is liable to be dismissed. However it is admitted that considering it as an unforeseen incident Respondent railway had paid an ex-gratia amount to the dependents of the deceased.
04. Issues:- From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 12.05.2025 for determination:-
1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question?
2. Whether the incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined u/Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
3. Whether the Applicant or other dependents of the deceased are entitled to get compensation?
4. To what Relief?
05. In support of claim, Applicant no.1 Deepak Prasad (husband of the deceased) presented himself before the Bench as AW1. He was cross-examined by the Respondents' counsel and discharged. The Applicants have filed the certified photo copies of following documents with claim petition which are marked exhibits as under:-
| 1. Journey Ticket | - Ext.A1 |
| 2. Station Memo | - Ext.A2 |
| 3. Fardbayan | - Ext.A3 |
| 4. FIR | - Ext.A4 |
| 5. Inquest report | - Ext.A5 |
| 6. Dead body challan | - Ext.A6 |
| 7. Post-mortem Report | - Ext.A7 |
| 8. Application of Deepak Prasad to Thana Incharge, GRP, Barkakana | - Ext |
