The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, vide which it dismissed the claim of the appellant.
The Court observed that Section 124-A is based on strict liability or no-fault liability in case of railway accident and if the case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
Brief Facts:
The original appellants had filed the Claim application on account of the death of their son namely Dilip Dhaneshwar Rajak in an untoward incident that occurred on 21/07/2018. It is stated that on 20/07/2018, the deceased, along with his friend namely Jaykishan Singh, was traveling from Bokaro to Secunderabad by boarding the train by purchasing a valid railway ticket. When the train was passing from Makodi railway station, suddenly there was smoke, and a fire started coming in the bogie. The passengers were shouting for help and some pulled the alarm chain. After stopping the train, passengers were alighted from the bogie and for saving their lives, they came onto the railway track. Suddenly one train Himsagar Express came there on the track and hit the deceased, who was standing on the track for saving his life, and in this accident, he died on the spot.
Parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before Railway Tribunal for the said untoward incident and claimed that the respondent railway is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, along with interest from the date of the accident as at the time of the incident the deceased was the bonafide passenger of the train. The respondent railway filed its reply and resisted the claim of the appellant by filing a written statement, merely stating that it was not an untoward incident and the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train. After considering the matter before it, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident and dismissed the claim application of the appellant/claimant. Hence, the present Appeal has been filed.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsels for the Appellants argued that the Learned Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of the father of the deceased and the Accidental Death Report in which it is specifically stated that the deceased had met with a railway accident and died on the spot. It is further submitted that the Tribunal further erred in not considering the evidence of the co-passenger, namely Jaikishan Singh, who specifically stated that the deceased was having a valid journey ticket.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application and argued that nothing was recovered in the personal search of the deceased and the factum of non-recovery of the railway ticket, in itself, goes to prove that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and this fact is rightly appreciated by the Railway Tribunal and passed an appropriate order, therefore, interference is not required. Further, the Counsel argued that it is not the case that the deceased fell from the train Secunderabad Express, but the accident took place when he was standing on the track.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that if Section 124-A is perused there is no condition, as such that the person who falls from the train on which he was traveling, only can claim compensation. The Railway failed to establish that the incident is covered by the exception to Section 124-A. There is no case of suicide nor self-inflicted injury or criminal act for which intention is required to commit such act, nor it is claimed that he was under intoxication. As such, the respondent Union of India cannot claim that it was not an untoward incident. It is the strict liability of the Railway to compensate for such an untoward incident.
Further, the Court noted that the initial burden is discharged by examining the co-passengers of the deceased that they were holding a valid ticket. The ticket might have been lost during the accident, as he was dashed by a running train. Section 124-A is based on strict liability or no-fault liability in case of a railway accident, and if the case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the judgment dated 02/09/2022, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, is quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Dhaneshwar Rajak & Anr. vs UOI
Coram: Hon’ble Justice M.S. Jawalkar
Case no.: FIRST APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. R.G. Bagul
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Neerja Choubey
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :