The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, dated 04.06.2019, dismissing the claim of the claimants.
The Court observed that if it adopts a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, it will be preventing a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents.
Brief Facts:
On 17.02.2017, the deceased, along with three others, was proceeding to Pachmarhi for ‘Mahadev Yatra’. Appellant No.2 purchased a railway ticket and they boarded in Gorakhpur Express. Due to the heavy rush on the platform, the deceased and his friends boarded in different bogies. During the journey, the deceased fell down from the running train; however, as the companions of the deceased were in a different bogey, they were not aware of the incident. Subsequently, they came to know that the deceased was found on a railway track. As per the contentions of the Claimants, as the deceased died in an untoward incident while traveling as a passenger, the Claimants are entitled to compensation.
In response to the notice, the respondent - Railway contested the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is further the contention of Railway that the death of the deceased is not caused by an untoward incident, but the deceased died due to his own negligence, and therefore, the Claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held that the Claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and rejected the claim. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsels for the Appellants argued that the railway ticket produced on record, verified by the Railway Administration is sufficient to show that deceased was a bona fide passenger. The said railway ticket was verified by the Railway Administration and found to be a genuine one. Thus, the Claimant has proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent argued that there was no eye witness to the said incident. The evidence of AW-2 is not trustworthy, and hence, liable to be rejected. She further submitted that no ticket was found along with the deceased. The Claimants failed to prove that deceased was a bona fide passenger and he sustained injuries in an untoward incident and succumbed to the death. In view of that, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the Claimants and no interference is called for.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that nothing is on record to show that the deceased was traveling without a ticket. The oral evidence of AW-2 supported by the documentary evidence i.e., the ticket and letter Exh-A-45 sufficiently show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
The Court observed that if it adopts a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, it will be preventing a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. Hence, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e., a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter a railway train and falls down during the process.
Further, the Court observed that the burden on the claimant to prove that the deceased died in an untoward incident is discharged by the claimant by filing an affidavit of relevant acts. Thereafter, the burden will shift on the Railway Administration and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. Admittedly, the Railway Administration has not adduced any contrary evidence to show that deceased either died due to a dash by the train or he had committed suicide.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the judgment and award dated 04.06.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Malabai & Anr. vs Union of India
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke
Case no.: FIRST APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mrs H. S. Dhande
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. N. G. Chaubey
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :