In railway accident compensation claims, where incident circumstances are ambiguous, courts must adopt a liberal construction favoring beneficiaries, categorizing panic-induced fatalities resulting from platform overcrowding or railway mismanagement as accidents under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124 - Untoward incident - Death of passenger - Liability - The deceased, a bona fide passenger, was crushed by a train while attempting to deboard due to a panic-stricken situation caused by a rumour of fire. In scenarios where multiple constructions exist for an incident, the court adopts the more liberal interpretation favouring victims. The failure of the railway administration to provide cautionary announcements during the proximity of train movements constitutes a basis for liability. (Paras 12, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
An elderly passenger was travelling on an Express train. During a stop, a rumour of fire caused passengers to panic and hurriedly deboard. While attempting to move across tracks, the deceased was run over by a passing goods train. Dependents filed a claim for compensation.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal found the deceased to be a bona fide passenger and determined the incident to be an 'untoward incident/accident' covered under the statutory provisions. The lack of proper warning or announcement by the station master contributed to the fatality.

Issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, whether the incident qualifies as an untoward incident/accident, and whether the dependents are entitled to claim compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: In welfare legislation intended for beneficiaries, where two interpretations of an incident’s cause exist, the court must adopt the construction that benefits the victims. Panic-induced running due to unverified rumours of fire, exacerbated by the railway's failure to caution passengers, constitutes an accident under the Railways Act.

Result: Claim application allowed; compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded with interest.

Table of Content
1. interpreting 'untoward incident' under the railways act with liberal construction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
2. verification of dependency status for compensation eligibility. (Para 21)
3. procedural directions for disbursement of death compensation. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

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 eightlakhs only) with 12% interest from the Respondents Railway for the death of Nandlal Shukla hereinafter referred to as "the deceased" in an alleged untoward incident on 14.06.2024.

02. Brief facts of the case:-

As per claim application, the deceased Nandlal Shukla, aged about 73 years, a retired person, was travelling along with his wife Shanti Devi and younger son Dinanath Shukla from Ranchi to Daltonganj by Ranchi Sasaram Intercity Express Train No.18635 in a 2nd class general bogie on 14.06.2024 with a valid journey ticket no.34992274 for three adults. Enroute while the said train was standing at Kumandi station, some unknown passenger suddenly cried loudly that there was a fire in the train. After hearing about fire, some passengers panicked and started getting down from the train. In the mean time a DN Goods Train namely Long Haul bearing No.41158/7263 was passing through the Kumandi railway station, which crushed the aged deceased Nandlal Shukla, while he was crossing the railway track, resulting in death on the spot. The journey ticket was handed over to SHO/GRP/Barkakana on 05.07.2024 by the son of the deceased. The son of the deceased Dinanath Shukla has already been paid Rs.1,50,000/- as an ex-gratia by the Respondents. Hence, Dinanath Shukla, Dinbandhu Kumar Shukla, both sons, Shanti Devi, wife of the deceased, Santoshi Devi and Sudha Dube, both married daughters 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 he 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 Kumandi 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 Respondents 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 14.05.2025 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 Dinanath Shukla (son 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. Station Memo - Ext.A1

2. Fardbayan - Ext.A2

3. FIR - Ext.A3

4. Post-mortem Report - Ext.A4

5. Statement of Dinanath Shukla - Annex.17

6. Family Details Certificate - Ext.A5

7. Application of Dinanath Shukla to Thana Incharg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 1266

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - RANCHIGyan Prakash Tewari, Judicial Member, Prasanta Kumar Sahu, Technical MemberDinanath Shukla – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentOA(IIU)/RNC/14/2025

RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - RANCHI
Gyan Prakash Tewari, Judicial Member, Prasanta Kumar Sahu, Technical Member
Dinanath Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
OA(IIU)/RNC/14/2025