Bombay High Court
Nahida Begum Wd/O Bilal Khan And Others vs Union Of India, Its General Manager, ... on 9 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:937
-1- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1318 OF 2018
APPELLANTS : 1. Nahida Begam wd/o Bilal Khan,
(Original claimant on RA) Aged 27 Years, Occ- Household
2. Abdul Quyyum Khan, S/o Abdul Latif
Khan, Aged 54 yrs. Occu. Business
3. Mumtaz Bejum w/o Quyyum Khan,
Aged 50 Yrs, Occ- Household
R/o Near Zam Zam School Plot no.29
Galli No.19, Sadat Nagar,
Aurangabad (M.S.)
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT : 1. Union of India
( on R.A.) It's General Manager
South Central Railway
Secunderabad (A.P.)
**************************************************************
Mr. R.G. Bagul, Advocate for appellants.
Ms Meghna Munshi, Advocate for respondent-railway.
**************************************************************
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 9th JANUARY, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act of 1987"), the
challenge is to the judgement and order dated July 27, 2016, passed
-2- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby
the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation
was dismissed.
2. Background facts:
Appellant No. 1 is the wife of a deceased person.
Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. The
appellants claimed that on January 3, 2014, the deceased had
purchased a railway ticket for a journey from Parbhani to
Aurangabad. He was waiting at platform No. 2 for the arrival of
the train. It is stated that the deceased was hit by a DEMU train.
He sustained an injury to his head and died on the spot.
Appellants' claim that the deceased died in an untoward incident.
He was a bona fide passenger holding a valid journey ticket.
3. Respondent-railway filed the written statement and
contested the claim application. It is contended that death was not
in an untoward incident. The death was due to the negligent acts of
the deceased. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The
railway could not be held liable to pay compensation merely
because the dead body was found lying on the platform.
-3- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
4. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the
parties, the learned Member of the Tribunal found that the claim
was without any substance and ultimately dismissed the same.
Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellants have
come before this Court in appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. R.G. Bagul, learned Advocate for the
appellants, and Ms. Meghna Munshi, learned Advocate for the
respondent-railway. I have perused the record and proceedings.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following
points fall under my determination:
i. Whether the deceased died in an untoward
incident as understood by Section 123 clause (c)(2) of
the Railways Act, 1989?
ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger
travelling with a valid journey ticket?
7. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that, on
facts as well as while applying the provisions of law, learned
Member of the Tribunal has committed an error. Learned
Advocate submitted that the ticket was found in the pocket of the
-4- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
deceased at the time of the panchanama. It is pointed out that the
railway authority has certified that it was valid journey ticket.
Learned Advocate submitted that dead body with an injury to the
head was found on the railway platform, and therefore, the burden
was on the railway to establish that the deceased did not sustain
any injury on the railway premises. Learned Advocate submitted
that there is ample material to come to the conclusion that the
deceased, either while boarding a train or while attempting to
board a train, fell from the train, sustained an injury, and died on
the spot. Learned Advocate submitted that the claim application
was drafted on the basis of available case papers, and therefore, the
learned Member of the Tribunal was required to analyze the entire
material and evidence and reach a correct conclusion. Learned
Advocate submitted that the Train Signal Register produced on
record maintained at Parbhani Railway Station clearly indicates
that before this DEMU train, a passenger train had come to
Parbhani Railway Station at 23.04 hrs. and departure at 23.15 hrs.
Learned Advocate submitted that the possibility of the deceased
falling from this train while boarding cannot be ruled out. In order
to fortify this contention, he has relied upon the DRM Report,
wherein it has been stated that neither the loco pilot nor guard of
the DEMU train reported any incident of injury to any person at
-5- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
Parbhani Railway Station due to the dash given by the DEMU
train. Learned Advocate submitted that the Deputy Station
Superintendent was not an eyewitness to the incident. He had
made a report on the basis of information provided by an unknown
passenger about the incident. Learned Advocate submitted that in
this case, the learned Member of the Tribunal has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record and has come to a wrong
conclusion.
8. Learned Advocate for the respondent-railway submitted
that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal has properly
analyzed the material on record and has come to a right conclusion.
Learned Advocate submitted that it is not the case of the appellants
that he was dashed by any other train. It is pointed out that it is the
case of the appellants that the deceased was dashed by a DEMU
train while he was waiting at platform No.2 for the arrival of his
train. Learned Advocate submitted that, therefore, the death of the
deceased could not be said to be in an untoward incident as
understood by Section 124(A) read with Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railway Act, 1989.
-6- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have gone
through the record and proceedings. In my view, the perusal of the
record would show that the learned Member of the Tribunal has
not properly appreciated the material on record and has come to a
wrong conclusion. Undisputed facts need to be stated at the outset.
The dead body of the deceased was found on platform No. 2. He
had sustained an injury to his head. The death was due to injury
sustained by him. At the time of panchanama, the journey ticket
purchased at 10.37 PM on January 3, 2014 for the journey from
Parbhani to Aurangabad was found in the pocket of the deceased.
Deputy Station Superintendent was not an eyewitness to the
incident. During the course of the inquiry Guard as well as the loco
pilot of the DEMU train stated that at Parbhani Railway Station,
there was no any incident of dash to any person either at the
railway station or while crossing the railway track. The DRM
inquiry also fortified this fact. A reference has been made in the
DRM inquiry about the candid statement made by the guard of the
DEMU train and the pilot of the DEMU train. The records
undisputedly indicate that no passenger or person standing at
platform No. 2 of Parbhani Railway Station was dashed by a
DEMU train. The person who had informed about the incident to
the Deputy Station Superintendent at Parbhani Railway Station
-7- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
was unknown to the Deputy Station Superintendent. He was not
examined. The report of the Deputy Station Superintendent,
Parbhani Railway Station, is based on hearsay information.
10. In the teeth of the above-stated undisputed facts, the
issues raised in this appeal need consideration. It is seen on perusal
of the Train Register Book for Signal Line report at page A-63 that
the DEMU train did not halt at Parbhani Railway Station. The
deceased had purchased a railway ticket at 10.37 p.m. and was
waiting for the train. The Train Signal Register indicates that
before this DEMU train one passenger train had passed through
Parbhani Railway Station towards Aurangabad. The said passenger
train had arrived at 23.04 hours and departed at 23.15 hours.
Before the arrival of this passenger train, the deceased had
purchased the railway ticket from the railway station at 10.37 PM
and was waiting for the train to go to Aurangabad. In my view,
there is a gap of 30 minutes between the arrival of the DEMU train
and departure of passenger train. The deceased was to travel to
Aurangabad. There was no question of the deceased attempting to
board the DEMU train, which had no scheduled halt at Parbhani.
At the most, he would have tried to board a passenger train, which
definitely would have scheduled halt at Aurangabad Railway
-8- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
Station either on arrival or at the time of departure of the said train
at 23.15 hours. In my view, this aspect ought to have been
explained by the railway. In the absence of proper explanation of
this fact by railway a vacuum is created. This vacuum could have
been explained by the evidence of the Deputy Station
Superintendent. The deceased was found with a valid journey
ticket. He was found lying in an injured condition on platform
No.2 of the Parbhani Railway Station. In the facts situation the
only inference that can be drawn is that the deceased, while
boarding a train, might have fallen, and sustained the injury, and
died. It is to be noted that if any train had not passed through
Parbhani Railway Station towards Aurangabad from the time of the
purchase of the ticket by the deceased at 10.37 till the passing of
DEMU train at 23.33 hours, then the case of the appellants would
have deserved rejection. Undisputedly, there was no eyewitness to
the incident. The possibility of the deceased being hit by the
DEMU train has been completely ruled out on the basis of the
available material.
11. The evidence on record therefore clearly indicates that
the deceased might have fallen down while boarding a passenger
train proceeding towards Aurangabad from Parbhani Railway
-9- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
Station at 23.15 hours. He was possessing a valid journey ticket. He
was as such a bona fide passenger.
12. The respondent-railway has contended that the injury
sustained by the deceased was due to his negligence and as such, a
self inflicted injury. In the totality of undisputed facts and
circumstances, it is not possible to conclude that the case of the
deceased would be covered by any of the clauses of proviso to
Section 124(A). In this case, in my view, the defence of negligence
would not be available to the railway. The liability in such a case is
based on the principle of no fault theory, or a strict liability. The
defence of contributory negligence in such a case is not available.
In this case, on both counts, the learned Member of the Tribunal
has failed to properly appreciate the material. In the teeth of the
available material on record, I am of the view that the
appellants have established that the deceased died in an untoward
incident. The undisputed facts would crystallize the issue. The
deceased was a bona fide passenger. The appellants, in my view,
would be entitled to get the compensation.
13. Learned Advocates pointed out that, in view of the
notification issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board)
-10- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
dated December 22, 2016, in case of a death claim, the respondent
shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight
Lacs Only). Learned Advocates further submits that appellants are
entitled to get compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- but without
interest. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410.
14. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
15. The judgment and order dated July 27, 2016, passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, cannot be
sustained. It is accordingly, quashed and set aside. I record my
findings on both points in the affirmative.
16. The appellants are found entitled to get compensation of
Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs Only) without interest.
i) The appellant No. 1, Nahida Begum, w/o Bilal
Khan, shall be entitled to get 60% of the amount of compensation.
ii) Appellant Nos. 2 and 3-Abdul Quyyum Khan and
Mumtaz Bejum w/o Quyyum Khan--shall be entitled to
compensation of 20% each.
-11- 902 fa 1318.18.Bagul.j. final.odt
iii) The amount of compensation shall be deposited in
the bank accounts of the appellants.
iv) The respondent-Railway is directed to deposit the
amount of compensation within four months from the date of
receipt of this order.
v) The appellants shall provide bank account details
to the respondent-Railway.
vi) If the compensation is not deposited within four
months, it shall carry interest 6% from the date of receipt of this
order until the realization.
17. The First Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/01/2024 18:40:36
