Jharkhand High Court
Bandhna Minj @Leda Oraon vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 462 of 2023
1. Bandhna Minj @Leda Oraon, aged abot 53 years,
father of deceased Ajit Minj
2. Bhudli Orain, aged about 56 years, mother of
deceased Ajit Minj
Residents of Village/Mohalla: Diuri, P.O/ P.S:
Karra, District-Khunti - 835209 (Jharkhand).
..... ... Appellants
Versus
Union of India, through the General Manager,
South Eastern Railway, 3, Koilaghat Street,
P.O./P.S.- Garden Reach, Kolkata (West Bengal).
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the UOI (Railway) : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC.
------
10/ 19.02.2025 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned CGC appearing for the
sole respondent-Union of India-Railway.
2. This appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgment / order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the learned
Member (Technical)/RCT/Ranchi, in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/23/2022,
whereby, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appellants claim of
Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of incident/filing
of the application on account of death of their son Ajit Minj.
3. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that pursuant to the order of the co-ordinate Bench dated
16.07.2024, the Trial Court Records have been received. He submits
that the appellants herein instituted the compensation case before the
learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, which was registered
as Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/23/2022, stating that the deceased Ajit Minj
travelling with Subhani Tirkey and Sanjay by Train No. 12811 Hatia
Express from Lokmanya Tilak to Hatia with a valid railway ticket. The
ticket of Ajit Minj was lost. Subhani Tirkey and Sanjay were travelling
with a valid reserved ticket in Coach No. S-6 Berth No. 15 and 12. On
19.7.2022 when the train was about to reach Karra station, Ajit Minj
who was standing near the gate of the train, fell down due to sudden
jerk and died on the spot. He submits that on these backgrounds, the
case was registered, however, the learned tribunal has rejected the claim
of the claimants on the ground that the deceased was not the bona fide
passenger and the death was not coming within the meaning of
untoward accident. He further submits that the deceased was standing
near the gate and due to sudden jerk, the accident took place, in view of
that the accident comes within the definition of untoward accident in
view of Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred
to as the Act]. He submits that this issue has set at rest in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
Versus Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572. He then submits that
the falling down from the moving train and in that regard the issue has
been framed in para-8.3 in the said judgment, which has been answered
in para-25 of the said judgment. Both paras i.e. 8.3 and 25 are quoted
hereinbelow:-
"8.3. The concept of self-inflicted injury.--
Whether attempt of getting into or getting
down a moving train resulting in an accident
was a case of "self-inflicted injury" so as not
to entitle to any compensation or no such
concept could not apply under the scheme of
law which casts strict liability to pay
compensation by the Railways under Sections
124 and 124-A. In this regard, views of the
High Courts of Kerala in Joseph P.T. v. Union
of India [Joseph P.T. v. Union of India, 2013
SCC On Line Ker 24151 : AIR 2014 Ker 12] ,
Bombay in Pushpa v. Union of India
[Pushpa v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 8117 : (2017) 3 ACC 799] and Delhi
in Shyam Narayan v. Union of India [Shyam
Narayan v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 8734 : 2018 ACJ 702] may appear to be
against the decisions of this Court in Union of
India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [Union of
India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9
SCC 527 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] and
Jameela v. Union of India [Jameela v. Union
of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443 : (2010) 4 SCC
(Civ) 644] .
25. We are unable to uphold the above view as
the concept of "self-inflicted injury" would
require intention to inflict such injury and not
mere negligence of any particular degree.
Doing so would amount to invoking the
principle of contributory negligence which
cannot be done in the case of liability based
on "no fault theory". We may in this
connection refer to the judgment of this Court
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil
Kumar [United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398 :
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale
652] laying down that plea of negligence of
the victim cannot be allowed in claim based
on "no fault theory" under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we
hold that 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.
4. Relying on the above judgment, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants submits that the case of the appellants are fully
covered.
5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned CGC appearing for the sole
respondent-Union of India (Railway) submits that the learned Tribunal
has rightly passed the order and the accident took place while the
deceased standing near the gate, that will not come within the meaning
of untoward accident. He submits that the latches are said to be there
against the deceased, as he was trying to jump at the railway station and
he was not the bona fide passenger.
6. From the judgment of the learned tribunal, it transpires that
the father of the deceased has stated that when his son was returning
from Mumbai and when the train slowed down, his son tried to de-
board from the train, his leg slipped and he fell down from the train and
his body was cut into two pieces, resulting in his death. The Inquest
Report has also mentioned that the body of the deceased was cut into
two parts. The station memo also suggests that one unknown person,
aged about 25 years, jumped from the running train No.12811 at Karra
Yard Line No. 3 (KM-454/31) at 08.18 Hrs. on 19.7.2022 and died on
the spot. Thus, boarding on the train is proved in light of the nature of
injury, inquest report as well as the station memo. It is also an admitted
position that along with the deceased Ajit Minj, two persons were also
travelling namely Subhani Tirkey and Sanjay with a valid reserved
ticket, however, the finding to that effect is not there in the judgment of
the learned Tribunal.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
Vesrus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., 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.
8. 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 stipulates 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 section by the railway
administration if the passenger dies or suffers
injury 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."
9. From the above provision made under Section 124-A of the
Act, it is apparent that the deceased is not covered by the proviso to
Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the
reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A.
This is very much clear that the case in hand is covered by the main
body of Section 124-A of the Act. Thus, it is crystal clear that Section
124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway
accidents. If a case falls in main body of Section, it is wholly irrelevant
as to who was at fault.
10. 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 and this has been considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jameela Versus Union of India,
reported in 2010(12) SCC 443, where in para-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
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."
11. 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 a train in view of the documents of the
respondent, which has been taken note hereinabove.
12. Credence is very much there of the factum of death on
account of fall from a train, because the place of death 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.
13. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the
finding of the learned Tribunal is, therefore, not correct, as such, the
judgment / order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the learned Member
(Technical)/RCT/Ranchi, in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/23/2022, is
hereby, set aside.
14. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rina Devi (Supra), the appellants are entitled for a
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date
of incident till the date of actual payment is made.
15. This appeal is allowed in the above terms and disposed of.
16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned
tribunal forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
