Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 1288
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - SECUNDERABAD
G. John Prasad, Technical Member
Balaga Thulasamma – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
OA II (U)/SC/18 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijaya Sailaja N
For the Respondents: N Naga Prashanthi
The expression 'accidental falling of a passenger' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, includes accidents wherein a bonafide passenger falls while attempting to board a train, necessitating a liberal, purposive interpretation to fulfill the objective of beneficial compensation legislation.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c) and 124-A - Untoward incident - Death of bonafide passenger - Accidental fall from train - Principle of beneficial legislation - Negligence of deceased - Held, expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bonafide passenger is trying to enter a railway train and falls down during the process; interpretation should be purposive and liberal in favour of claimants. (Paras 12, 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The deceased husband of Applicant No. 1 and father of Applicants No. 2 and 3, holding a valid journey ticket, attempted to board a train at Secunderabad Railway Station. He slipped during the boarding process and fell between the train and the platform due to sudden jerks, sustaining fatal injuries. The respondent argued that the death was a result of the deceased's own criminal act of boarding a moving train but did not dispute the ticket's veracity.
Findings of Court:
The court found the deceased to be a bonafide passenger and the event to constitute an untoward incident despite the claim of negligence by the railway, relying on the settled law that boarding a train constitutes part of the travel journey under the protective ambit of the Act.
Issues: Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether the incident constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: A liberal, purposive interpretation of beneficial legislation is required; an 'accidental fall' includes falling while attempting to board a train, and the argument of passenger negligence is of no consequence once the passenger is identified as bonafide with a genuine ticket.
Result: Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of claim application for compensation for train accident death. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. railway's defense of negligence and framing of issues. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence and arguments surrounding the boarding of the train. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. interpretation of 'untoward incident' and bonafide passenger status. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. award of compensation and disbursement modalities. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
J U D G M E N T
1. This claim application has been filed by wife and sons of the Late Balaga Someswar Rao S/o B.Janardhan (hereinafter referred as deceased) under Section 16 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Act 1987 r/w Section 123(c)(2) and Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989 for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest from the date of incident till realization for the death of deceased who is stated to have died on 18.04.2024.
2. As per the averments made in the claim application, on 18.04.2024, the deceased, intending to travel to Warangal and thereafter proceed to his native place in Odisha, went to Secunderabad Railway Station and purchased a second-class journey ticket from Secunderabad to Warangal. He informed his wife and sons about the said journey. While boarding Train No.18046, East Coast Express, he accidentally slipped and fell between the train and Platform No.2 due to the sudden jerk of the moving train. Consequently, he sustained grievous injuries, including the amputation of his left leg. He was immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital by the 108 ambulance with the assistance of railway staff and railway police, where he was admitted under MLC No.11655. Unfortunately, despite treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained.
3. The Respondent Railway filed Written Statement denying various averments made in the application and has put the applicants to strict proof of the same. The respondent railway submitted that as per the conclusion in the statutory enquiry report the death of the deceased has occurred on account of the conduct of the deceased of attempting to board the subject train in the case, when the same was arriving at platform of Kazipet Railway Station and before the same had come to complete halt. Hence, the case is covered under exceptions provided under proviso (b) and (c) of Section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989 and prayed the court to dismiss the case.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of untoward incident?
2) Whether the death of the deceased was on account of untoward incident as defined Section 123 (c) read with section 124 - A of Railways Act, 1989?
3) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?
4) Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed? And To what relief?
5. Applicant No.3/son of the deceased filed affidavit as AW1 and submitted the following documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A11:
i. Original Train Journey ticket bearing No.82786488
ii. Attested copy of FIR bearing No.184/2024 dt.18.04.2024
iii. Attested copy of Inquest Report
iv. Attested copy of PME report
v. Original Death Certificate of the deceased
vi. Copy of Aadhar Card of Deceased (Balaga Someswar Rao)
vii. Copy of Aadhar Card of Applicant No.1 (Balaga Tulasamma)
viii. Copy of Aadhar Card of Applicant No.2 (Balaga Eshwar Rao)
ix. Copy of Aadhar Card of Applicant No.3 (Balaga Sai)
x. i) Copy of Election ID card of Applicant No.1
ii) Copy of Election ID card of Applicant No.2
iii) Copy of Election ID card of Applicant No.3
xi. Online copy of FSC Ration Card
6. None appeared on behalf of Respondent Railways. However, Divisional Railway Manager's report was filed which had been marked as Ex. R1.
7. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for Applicants and learned Counsel for Respondent. On consideration of material available on record and the contentions of the learn
