Jharkhand High Court
Balmiki Singh @ Valmiki Singh vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 2 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:10507
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
M.A. No. 19 of 2023
----
1.Balmiki Singh @ Valmiki Singh, aged about 46 years son of late
Mahendra Singh resident of Village Nayanagar Ranidiyara, PO Ranidiyara,
PS Kahalgaon District Bhagalpur, State Bihar
2.Pratima Devi aged about 35 years wife of Balmiki Singh @ Valmiki Singh
resident of Nayanagar Ranidiyara, PO Ranidiyara, PS Kahalgaon District
Bhagalpur ...... .... ... Appellant(s). P.O.No.1.
-- Versus --
Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway Kolkata having
Office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Fairlie Place, PO and PS Kolkata, District
Kolkata, West Bengal ...... .... Applicant/ Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellants(s) :- Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s)/UOI:- Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I
Mrs. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C.
----
10/02.04.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Anil Kumar,
the learned A.S.G.I and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent
Eastern Railways.
2. I.A. No. 7659 of 2023 has been filed for condoning the delay of 486 days
in filing the instant appeal.
3. It has been pointed out that the appellant is the father of the deceased
and in preparation of preferring the instant appeal such delay has occurred and
as such, the said delay may kindly be condoned.
4. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Railway
opposed the prayer on the ground that sufficient cause has not been made out
to condone the said delay and in view of that the prayer for condonation of
2025:JHHC:10507
delay may kindly be rejected.
5. Considering that the claim of the appellant has been rejected by the
learned Railway Claims Tribunal and in preparation of preferring the instant
appeal such delay has occurred, this Court finds that sufficient ground has been
made out to condone the said delay, and as such, the aforesaid delay in
preferring the instant appeal is, hereby, condoned and consequently, the instant
I.A filed for condonation of such delay is allowed and disposed of.
6. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 19.06.2019
passed in Case No.O.A. (IIU)/RNC/ 67/2018 passed by learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Ranchi whereby the claim of the appellants has been rejected by the
learned Tribunal under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railway
(Amendment) Act, 1994.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant being
father of the deceased namely Vishranjan Singh has filed the said case for
compensation amount of Rs.8 lacs on account of death of his son for the
injuries sustained by him in an accident that was caused due to negligence of
the driver. He submits that the deceased was travelling as bonafide passenger
on 08.11.2016 by boarding in Dhuriyan passenger train No.53038 DN along
with his maternal cousin namely Pankaj Kumar (co-passenger) having valid
ordinary ticket from Shivnarayanpur Station to Karmatola Station bearing Ticket
no.99967 and cousin brother was going to Sahibganj station and having
separate 2nd class ordinary ticket vide ticket no.24991 from Shivanarayanpur
Station to Sahebganj Station. He submits that due to rush the deceased was
standing near toilet and due to jostling one another he fell down from the train
and pursuant to that the said accident has taken place. He submits that even
the railway tickets have been produced and in the form the correct ticket
number is disclosed and the learned court only on the ground of producing the
tickets at the time of hearing has not relied and has doubted the same and
2025:JHHC:10507
dismissed the claim application. He submits that there are other materials on
record to suggest that the accident took place while travelling in the train and in
view of that the said finding is not correct.
8. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent Eastern Railways has opposed the prayer and submits that in the
FIR lodged by the brother a U.D case has been registered on statement of a
person wherein it has been disclosed that the train was coming from the
opposite side and they were present in the track and in view of that the
accident took place. He submits that it is not a case of falling from the train and
in view of that the learned court has rightly doubted the ticket which was
produced later on. He submits that in light of Section 124-A of the Indian
Railways Act it is not a case of untowards incident and as such the learned
court has rightly passed the order. He relied in the case of Union of India v.
Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 and referred to paragraph 17 of the
said judgment, which is as under:
"17. Learned ASG for the appellant submitted that view in
Rathi Menon (supra) stands watered down by subsequent decisions
especially in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra), Mohamadi (supra)
and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra). Rathi Menon (supra) was
premised on the basis that there was no law for interest and there
will be injustice if compensation was paid at money value which
had got reduced by the time the compensation was paid. Factually
interest was awarded in Rathi Menon (Supra). It was on that basis
that judgments in Workmen Compensation cases were held to be
distinguishable though the said judgments are of larger
Benches31. Subsequently in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra) it
has been held by this Court, after referring to 30 (1998) 9 SCC 134
31 Para 33 of the judgment Rathi Menon (supra), that right to
claim compensation accrued on the date of the incident though
compensation is computed on the date of the award of the
Tribunal. To compensate for loss of money value on account of
lapse of time and for the denial of right to utilize the money when
due, interest was required to be paid 32. Accordingly, this Court
directed payment of interest on the awarded sum from the date of
application till the date of recovery. This view was followed in
Mohamadi (supra). In Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra), without any
specific discussion on the legal issue involved, direction was issued
2025:JHHC:10507
for payment of compensation which was applicable at the material
time and the same was assumed to be of Rs.4 lakhs. In that case,
the accident took place in the year 2005 and the award of the
Tribunal was in 2009 i.e. prior to 1st January, 2017."
9. On these grounds, he submits that this appeal is fit to be dismissed.
10. In view of above, it transpires from the record that three persons have
died due to said accident and the deceased namely, Vishwaranjan Singh was
the son of this appellant who is the father of the deceased. So far U.D case is
concerned it was not on the statement of any of the family members as has
been disclosed and it was on the statement of one Mithun Kumar and he has
stated like that what has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Railways. In the trial court records, in the form of such
compensation the ticket number is correctly disclosed as 99967 and the same
ticket was produced before the learned court that may be at the time of
argument and this ticket is also on the record which clearly suggest that the
ticket number was disclosed at the time of filing of the form for such
compensation case itself. Merely because it has been produced later on that
cannot be a ground of not accepting the said ticket.
11. The only issue required to be answered is as to whether the deceased in
the facts fell from the train or not and whether he is entitled to compensation in
light of section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 or not.
12. AW-2 Pankaj Kumar who was the co-passenger and AW-1 has furnished
the relevant document. Pankaj Kumar who was examined as AW-2 and he has
stated that on 08.11.2016 the deceased was the cousin brother aged about 12
years who also insisted to go along with him who is maternal uncle and reached
near Shivnarayan Railway Station and has purchased two tickets and in the
same line AW-1 has also stated.
13. The respondent Railways has filed the written statement and in
paragraph no.8 has denied the fact of valid journey tickets and the deceased
2025:JHHC:10507
was a bonafide passenger of any train whatsoever and it was also denied that
the deceased has accidentally been fallen down from the running train due to
jostling of the passenger. The post mortem is on the record and the reason of
death is said to be accident due to falling from the train. In the Final Form it
has been disclosed that on enquiry it was found that the accident is taken place
and due to falling from the train the said accident has occurred. Thus, the
accident in light of the said document and the statement are proved and further
the tickets cannot be said to be doubted as in the form the ticket number is
correctly disclosed.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527
held that since the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial
piece of legislation it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a
narrow and technical one.
14. Sub-Section 29 of Section 2 of the Act defines "passenger" to
mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123 (C) of the Act
defines "untoward incident to include the accidental falling of any passenger
from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Act states as under:-
"124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.-
When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident
occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act,
neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such
as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the
dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an
action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway
administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be
prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death
of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this
2025:JHHC:10507
section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or
suffers injury -7- M.A. No. 114 of 2014 due to -
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or
insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical
treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury
caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation - For the
purposes of this section, "passenger" includes -
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling
by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform
ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."
15. In view of above provision of Section 124-A of the said Act, it is crystal
clear that the accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned
in the clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso of Section 124-A of the said Act. It is
very much clear that the case in hand is covered by the main body of section
124-A of the said Act.
16. In view of above, Section 124-A of the said Act lays down a strict liability
or no fault liability in a case of railway accidents. If a case falls in the main body
of the section, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. Standing at the
open doors of a compartment in a running train, may be a negligent act, even a
rash act but without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act which has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jameela v. Union of
India, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443 wherein at paragraph no.12, it has
been held as under:
"12. The manner in which the accident is sought to
be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was
standing at the open door of the train compartment from
where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as
2025:JHHC:10507
negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very
uncommon on Indian Trains is not the same thing as a
criminal act mentioned in clause (c ) to the proviso to Section
124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c ) must have
an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the
open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a
negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is
certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways
must fail even after assuming everything in its favour."
17. In view of above and considering the balance of probabilities, as per
which, civil cases have to be decided, the deceased, in fact quite clearly had
died on account of a fall from the train in view of the documents of the
respondents Railways itself in light of the tickets as well as the post mortem
report and final form and the enquiry by the police. The factum of the accident
is very much there which has occurred on the railway track and it is neither
near the residence nor the work place of the deceased for the accident to be of
any form of criminal negligence/self-inflicted injury of wrongly standing on the
railway tracks or crossing of the railway tracks.
18. The judgment relied by Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Railways in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 is not in dispute and that judgment is still holds
the field. Section 124-A of the said Act was also considered in the said
judgment. In paragraph no.29 of the said judgment, it has been held that mere
absence of tickets of the injured or a deceased will not negate the claim that he
was not a bona-fide passenger and what has been discussed hereinabove, it
has been proved that the accident has taken place due to fall from the train.
19. As such, the said judgment is very clear on the law point on which
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Railways. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and the analysis, the Court
finds that the learned court's finding is perverse, and as such, the Award dated
2025:JHHC:10507
19.06.2019 passed in Case No.O.A. (IIU)/RNC/ 67/2018 passed by learned
Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi is hereby set aside.
20. The appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.8 lacs as compensation in
view of subsequent amendment in the Rules.
21. In light of Rule 4 of Railway Accident and Untoward Incident
Compensation Rules, 1990 which was amended in the year 2017 and in light of
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v.
Rina Devi(supra), the said compensation will be provided by the respondent-
Railway within six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this
order.
22. This appeal is allowed in the above terms and disposed of.
23. Let the trial court records be sent back to the learned court concerned
forthwith.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
A.F.R.
