Bombay High Court
Nilavati S/O Akhil Thorat vs Union Of India Thr General Manager, ... on 27 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:9131
(1) FA-2761-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2761 OF 2024
Nilavati S/o. Akhil Thorat,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o Pimpalgaon Mahadev,
Tal. Ardhapur, Dist: Nanded ..Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
Union of India,
Through General Manager,
South Central Railways,
Secundrabad (Telengana) ..Respondent
...
Mr. P. S. Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs. Sudha S. Chintamani, Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 27th MARCH, 2025.
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Heard. Admit. By consent of parties, taken up for final
hearing.
2. The appellant impugns judgment and order dated 22.04.2022
passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No.OA
(IIu)/NGP/214/2019.
3. The appellant/original claimant raised claim for
compensation towards personal injury suffered by her from
respondent/Railway, contending that she suffered amputation of
left hand from shoulder in an untoward incident occurred on
16.07.2018. The applicant contends that on 16.07.2018, she was
traveling from Nanded to Mudkhed by Train No.17642 Narkher-
(2) FA-2761-2024.odt
Kacheguda Intercity Express. Her cousin Rajesh had purchased
railway ticket for her travel. She boarded in train, however, due to
heavy rush, she was stuck at the door of compartment. While train
was running at KM No.362/9 within at Mugat Railway Station, due
to sudden jerk she fell down from running train, causing serious
injury to her left hand shoulder. She was shifted to Adhar
Hospital, Nanded, where her left hand amputated from shoulder.
4. The respondent/Railway opposed claim firstly on the ground
that applicant was not bonafide passenger. Secondly, she suffered
injury while she was alighting from running train, hence, it is a
case of self-inflicted injury.
5. The Tribunal framed issues, recorded evidence and dismissed
claim holding that claimant suffered self-inflicted injuries, which
falls in exceptions under Section 124-A (b) of Railways Act, 1989
(for short 'the Act') and that she was not bonafide passenger.
6. Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant
vehemently submits that Tribunal misconceived the fact and legal
position while deciding claim application. According to him,
absence of ticket itself would not be sufficient to hold that applicant
was not bonafide passenger. The applicant has tendered sufficient
explanation for her inability to produce railway ticket. He would
further submit that issue of negligence or contributory negligence
(3) FA-2761-2024.odt
is not germane to the proceeding under Section 124-A of the Act,
which is in the nature of strict liability. In support of his
contentions he relies upon observations of Supreme Court of India
in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi1, judgment of this Court
in case of Mira Jangannath Vibhute Vs. Union of India 2 and
observations of Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh
in case of Raj Kumari and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI)3.
7. Per contra, Ms. Chintamani, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent supports impugned judgment of Tribunal contending
that Tribunal has delved into relevant aspects of the facts and law
and rendered its decision supported by adequate reasons, which
does not require interference in this Appeal.
8. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocate appearing for respective parties and on perusal of record
and proceeding, it can be observed that there is no dispute that
appellant fell from running train and suffered injury to her left
shoulder leading to amputation of left hand from shoulder. The
issue poses for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether
applicant can be termed as bonafide passenger within meaning of
Section 2(29) of the Act, as elaborated under Section 124-A and
whether she was victim of untoward incident as defined under
1 AIR 2018 SC 2362.
2 AIROnline 2019 Bom 940.
3 1993 ACJ 846.
(4) FA-2761-2024.odt
Section 123(c) of the Act, resulting into schedule injury specified in
Rule 3 of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short 'the Rules').
9. The applicant has specifically pleaded that her cousin brother
Rajesh obtained railway ticket for traveling from Nanded to
Mudkhed. She possessed said ticket, however, it was misplaced
when she met with an accident. She filed affidavit in support of
her contentions. The Tribunal discarded her evidence only for the
reason that applicant failed to examine her cousin brother Rajesh,
who had purchased ticket for her. In this background, reference
can be given to the observations of Supreme Court of India in case
of Rina Devi (supra), particularly paragraph no.17.4, which reads
thus:
"Mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will
not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.
Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be
discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and
burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can
be decided on the facts shown or the attending
circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to
case on the basis of facts found."
10. In present case, applicant has tendered her evidence affidavit
in support of her contention that she was bonafide passenger
having valid ticket and also explained facts that she misplaced
ticket when she met with an accident. Therefore, certainly, burden
was shifted upon respondent to prove that she undertook journey
(5) FA-2761-2024.odt
without ticket. On the basis of some confused statement in cross-
examination, she cannot be unsuited. The respondent has failed to
bring sufficient material to dislodge claim of applicant that she was
bonafide passenger. The observations of Tribunal drawing adverse
inference against applicant cannot be countenanced in facts of
present case. This Court, therefore, hold that applicant was
bonafide passenger at the time of incident.
11. The second aspect of the matter is as to whether it was a case
of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act or
applicant suffered self-inflicted injuries as per proviso of
Section124-A (b) of the Act. The respondent relied upon report of
guard stating that "unknown female passenger aged about 45 years
run over by 17642 at MGC (Mugat) platform", which is supported
by statement of Loco Pilot, which states that "unknown female fell
while alighting from train". The respondent relied upon evidence
of Ram Sonkar (RW-1) and Nitesh Kumar (RW-2). It is accordingly
contended that applicant suffered injuries while she was alighting
from running train. They contend that act of applicant was with
full knowledge of imminent possibilities of endangering her life or
limb. Therefore, it shall be termed as self-inflicted injury as
defined under proviso (b) of Section 124-A of the Act.
12. It is trite that, Section 124 and Section 124-A provides
compensation whether or not there has been any wrongful act,
(6) FA-2761-2024.odt
neglect or default on the part of the railway administration, in case
of accident or in case of untoward incident. The provision is based
on principle of strict liability with exceptions as provided under
proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Apparently, defence of
negligence on the part of victim would not be available. The
negligence or contributory negligence on the part of victim cannot
be equated with term self-inflicted injury. The Supreme Court of
India in case of Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India 4 after taking
survey of earlier pronouncements in subject matter observed as
under:
"Therefore, the two limbs of the Proviso should be
construed to have two different objectives to be achieved.
We can understand the meaning of the term "self-inflicted
injury" not only from the sources provided by the
dictionaries, but also from the context in which it is used in
the statute. The term "self-inflicted injury" used in the
statute can be deduced as one which a person suffers on
account of one's own action, which is something more than
a rash or negligent act But it shall not be an intentional act
of attempted suicide. While there may be cases where there
is intention to inflict oneself with injury amounting to self-
inflicted injury, which falls short of an attempt to commit
suicide, there can also be cases where, irrespective of
intention, a person may act with total recklessness, in that,
he may throw all norms of caution to the wind and
regardless to his age, circumstances, etc. act to his
detriment."
13. In facts of the present case when claimant has specifically
contended that because of rush she could not get entry in train and
stuck at the door and then due to jerk she fell from tain, there is
nothing to discern that her act was reckless and unmindful to bring
4 AIR 2010 SC 3705.
(7) FA-2761-2024.odt
it within the purview of self-inflicted injury. The reading of
evidence as recorded by respondent shows that she fell from train
while alighting. However, this appears to be inference based on
report made by guard. No direct evidence is placed into service to
indicate special features of incident, by which inference of reckless
act on the part of claimant can be drawn. The respondents failed to
bring material to support their defence. The Tribunal
misconstrued facts and legal position while drawing inference
based on assumption and presumption and surmises while
rejecting claim.
14. It is not in dispute that applicant suffered amputation of her
left hand from shoulder. The injury suffered by her will fall in
Clause (3) of Part III of schedule under Rule 3 of the Rules. The
claimant would be, therefore, entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,60,000/- as per schedule brought into force from 1 st day of
January 2017. The claimant is, therefore, entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of application till award as per law laid down by
Supreme Court in case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors Vs.
Uoi & Anr5. Hence following order:
ORDER
a. First Appeal is allowed.
5 AIR 2009 SC 3098.
(8) FA-2761-2024.odt
b. The judgment and award dated 22.04.2022 passed by
Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No.OA
(Iiu)/NGP/214/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The claim
stands allowed.
c. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of
Rs.5,60,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum to appellant
from the date of application till date of realization of amount.
d. The respondent shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to appellant.
e. On deposit of amount, same be disbursed to claimant.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/March-2025
