The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sh. Prithvi Singh & Anr. vs Union of India consisting of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated that death or injury while boarding or de-boarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.
Facts
The deceased undertook journey in train number 54412 Meerut-Rewari passenger and when the train reached between Gurgaon and Garhi Harsaru Junction railway stations, the deceased, who was standing on the offside gate of the train compartment, fell from the train and died at the spot of accident. The appellants filed this appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellant/claimants was dismissed.
Contentions Made
Appellant: It was contended that the deceased had lost his balance during journey and fell on the railway track, where he was hit by an incoming train. It was further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train at the time of the incident and suffered an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Respondent: It was contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, inasmuch as the ticket in question was purchased for undertaking journey from Patel Nagar to Gurgaon Railway Station, but instead of de-boarding the train at destination station, the deceased continued his journey upto Garhi Harsaru Railway Station where the accident took place.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that two questions of law are discernible in the present case – (i) whether the deceased was a ‘bonafide passenger’ in the train in question at the time of incident, and (ii) whether the accident constituted an ‘untoward incident’ as defined u/s 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Regarding the first issue, relying on Vaishali wd/o Nitesh Bhalerao v. Union of India it opined that merely because the passenger travels beyond authorized distance, he cannot be said to have seized to be bonafide passenger.
Regarding the second issue, relying on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. and Union of India v. Rina Devi it opined that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 incorporates the principle of strict liability and in such cases, a contention that there was no fault on part of the Railways or that there was contributory negligence, is not acceptable. Moreover, death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order, and accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded. The same was to be listed before the concerned Railway Claims Tribunal on 14.10.2022.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
