In FIRST APPEAL No.145 of 2021-BOM HC- Bombay HC asks Railways to pay Rs 8 lakh compensation, says even without any jerk or alarm chain pulling, people fall down from train in our Country and get injured or die
Justice Abhay Ahuja [02-01-2023]

Read Order: KANTABAI AND ORS v. THE UNION OF INDIA 

LE Correspondent

Nagpur, January 7, 2023: Directing the Railways to pay compensation of Rs 8 lakh to the family of the deceased who died in an untoward incident, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has opined that if the deceased being a  bonafide passenger, died in an untoward incident and the Railway authorities failed to adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the case fell under the exceptions in proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, then the appellants would be entitled to compensation u/s 124A.

Justice Abhay Ahuja allowed the  present  appeal instituted against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dismissing the claim of the appellants. The Single-Judge bench was of the view that the  Railway authorities did  not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the case falls under the exceptions in provision to Section 124A of the Railways Act  and in such circumstances, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act.

The brief facts were that Shri. Rangnath Dattarao Gaikwad was found dead on May 24,  2011 near Railway platform of Gangakhed Railway Station with his head cut off from the neck region and lying separated from the trunk ,  the body cut from his waist, the trunk completely crushed showing the ribs and total abdomen and chest viscera lacerated. It was   claimed by the appellants that the deceased died in an untoward incident on May 24, 2011, while travelling from Parli to Gangakhed by Parli Adilabad Passenger Train and fell down from the running train and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on the spot.

It was the case of the appellants-claimants that earlier the deceased had gone to meet his younger son Babasaheb Gaikwad, the third appellant herein. The third appellant who was in service at Parli had purchased a valid train ticket for the deceased father from Parli to Gangakhed worth Rs 4 at 4.30 a.m. for Parli Adilabad Passenger Train and boarded the deceased on that train from Parli Station.

It was also stated that when the train reached near Gangakhed Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train due to heavy rush in the train and died on the spot. It was submitted that the untoward incident happened due to the sole negligence of the respondent-Railway, and therefore, the respondent-Railway was liable to pay compensation to the appellants-claimants for the said untoward incident as the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

It was also submitted that the respondent-Railway had not produced any evidence or eye witness to prove that the injuries sustained by the deceased was not a result of an untoward incident or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

Rejecting the claim of the appellants, the Tribunal held that the appellants had not been able to prove that the deceased Rangnath was a bona fide passenger and that he had fallen down from any train carrying passengers.

 The appellants approached the High Court in this first appeal seeking to quash and set aside the said judgment and for an amount of Rs 8, 00,000 alongwith interest as compensation.

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that the death, as could be seen from the police papers and the postmortem report was  an untoward incident, resulting from a railway accident, involving Parli-Adilabad Passenger train. In the facts of this case, therefore, it didn't really matter that the deceased was hit or run over by a train, as it couldnot be denied that the incident was an untoward incident, the Court further noted.  Reference was placed on the judgment in Jameela and Others vs. Union of India.

It was further noted that the “Railway authorities did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the case fell under the exceptions in proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act. 

In these circumstances, the Bench held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act. In the light of such discussion, the Court was of the view that the deceased being a bonafide passenger, died in an untoward incident and therefore, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act.  In view of the observations stated above, the Bench allowed the appeal while directing the Railways to pay the appellants a sum of Rs 8 lakh.