Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkishore Sahu vs The Union Of India on 1 March, 2024
1
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 1st Of March, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 2697 Of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1 Ramkishore Sahu, Aged about 67 Years, S/o
Shri Somu Sahu, R/o L.C.H.-349, Ambedkar
Nagar, Pathakheda, Ward No.15, District-
Betul (M.P.)
2. Yashoda Sahu, Aged about 54 years, W/o Shri
Ramkishore Sahu, R/o L.C.H.-349, Ambedkar
Nagar, Pathakheda Ward No.15, District-
Betul (M.P.)
.....Appellants
(By Ms. Neha Bhatia - Advocate)
AND
Union Of India Through General Manager, West
Central Railway, Jabalpur (madhya Pradesh)
.....Respondent
(by Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 21.02.2024
Pronounced on : 01.03.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 28 th June, 2021
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (for short "the Tribunal") in
Case No.OA-IIu/BPL/214/2017, dismissing the claim of the appellants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were
arrived before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case, as summarized in the impugned judgment as
extracted below.
4. In the present petition Santosh Sahu was travelling on 06.04.2017 by
Train No.16031 Andaman Express from Betul to Bhopal after having
purchased a second class general ticket bearing No.AE-675471373 on the
fateful day. When the train reached near Habibganj Station, the deceased
slipped and fell from the moving train due to sudden jerk while the train
passing through the Habibganj Station as a result both his legs were cut of by
the train and sustained severe injuries and shifted to Hospital, where during
treatment, he succumbed to injuries. It is submitted that untoward incident
happened due to sole negligence of the respondent/Railways, therefore,
Railways is liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants for an
untoward incident as the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train. It is
submitted that respondent/Railways has not produced any evidence or eye
witnesses to prove that the injuries sustained by the deceased was not a result
of an untoward incident or the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
5. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed a claim
petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs)
before the Tribunal on account of the death of their son in an "untoward
incident" occurred on 06.04.2017 as defined u/s 123(c)(2) of the Indian
Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1989").
6. The respondent- Railway filed the written statement and opposed the
claim of the appellants. Though, the deceased was travelling in a train
no.16031 Andaman Express as a bonafide passenger at the time of the
incident. However, the incident occurred near Habibganj station, resulting the
own negligence of the deceased that he made an attempt to de-board from the
moving train, for which, he himself was responsible. The incident squarely
falls under the category of "self inflicted injury" at the time of the accident,
other passengers who reportedly advised the deceased against de-boarding
and jumping from the moving train, he disregarded their warnings and
jumped from the running train as his friend (Avinash Singh) reached and
waiting in Habibganj Railway Station, therefore, conduct of the deceased
falls under section 124(A) sub clause (b) and (c) of the Act of 1989, for
which, the Railways Administration is not liable to pay compensation and,
prays to dismiss the claim.
7. In view of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues :
1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the
train in question at the time of occurrence of the alleged
untoward incident ?
2. Whether the death of deceased caused due to the said
alleged untoward incident, as defined u/s 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989 ?
3. Whether the respondent/Railway Administration is
protected under the section 124(A) of the Railways Act,
1989 and is not liable to pay any compensation to the
applicants ?
4. Whether the applicants are the legal dependents of the
deceased to claim receive the compensation, if any,
granted ? who else are the dependents ?
5. Relief and cost ?
8. In order to establish the claim of the appellants at the time of
inquiry, Shri Ramkishore Sahu, who is the father of the deceased, examined
as AW-1 and exhibits A-1 to A-11 were got marked on behalf of the
appellants. Ravi Shankar points-man of Habibganj station, informed the
incident examined as RW-1 and marked exhibits-R/1 (DRM report) on behalf
of the respondent/Railway.
9. On appreciation of evidence of AW-1 and placing reliance on
exhibits A-1 to A-11 and the DRM's report Ex.R-1 dated 14.02.2018, the
learned Tribunal in the instant case came to the conclusion that the deceased
was a bonafide passenger of the train but his death occurred due to his own
action of "self inflicted injury" under section 124(A) of the Act of 1989, the
respondent/Railways is not liable to pay compensation to the
claimants/appellants and the incident happened outside the scope of
"untoward incident" and the deceased himself is responsible for the said
accident, after making his mind in advance, he jumped at Habibganj station
from the running train, act of the deceased being defined under the exception
of "self inflicted injuries" under section 124(A) of the Act of 1989 and on this
ground the learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants/claimants.
10. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the
learned Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal
seeking to set aside the judgment dated 28 th June, 2021 passed by the learned
Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in O.A.No.IIu/BPL/214/2017 and pray to allow the
appeal and award adequate compensation to the appellants/claimants.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways and perused the
material available on record.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Claims
Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation instead of dismissing the claim
petition holding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger under the
definition of untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
Further would submit that the deceased was a bonafide passenger inasmuch as
the respondent/Railways admitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger
traveling in train No.16031 Andaman Express that was not disputed by other
side. Further would submit that when the train reached Habibganj station and
due to heavy crowd in the compartment, he was hanging at the door as stated
by RW-1 due to jolting of the train unexpectedly fallen from the running train
at the platform no.3, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the
deceased was "self inflicted injury" as defined in Section 124(A) proviso (b)
of the Act of 1989 is not correct and the opinion drawn by the learned
Tribunal is misconstrued on the entire facts on record and the cause of death
due to outcome of the untoward incident under section u/s 123(c) (2) r/w
section 124(A) of the Act being a bonafide passenger, the adequate amount of
compensation may be awarded to the appellants.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Railways submit that
learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts as well the evidence and the
relevant documents and rejected the claim of appellants. Further would
submit that when the train was not being stopped at Habibganj station, the
deceased tried to get down and jumped from the running train. In view of the
matter, the learned Tribunal rightly came to a conclusion that the deceased
fallen due to his own action. The Tribunal has also observed that all the facts
and circumstances established that the act of the deceased was with
knowledge of the imminent possibility of endangering his life, and therefore,
it is squarely covered with the term of self inflicted injury as defined in
Section 124(A) proviso (b) of the Act, 1989. According to the Tribunal, the
incident is not an untoward incident and therefore, the appellants not entitled
to the compensation under Section 124(A) of the Act, 1989.
14. In the light of the above arguments, the points for determination is :-
(i). "Whether there was any merit in the petition to set
aside the judgment dated 28th June, 2021 passed by
the Claims Tribunal and to award adequate
compensation ?"
(ii). Whether the judgment of the learned Tribunal is in
accordance with principles of law or needs any
interference ?"
15. Considered the submissions of the respective counsel representing the
parties, perused and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited
documents. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger but his death occurred due to his own negligence and it is squarely
covered with the term of self inflicted injury as defined under Section 124(A)
proviso (b) of the Act, 1989 and the finding of the learned Tribunal has to be
reassessed and on perusal of record, certain material aspects ignored by the
learned Tribunal without proper analyzing the evidence and gave a finding
and rejected the claim of the appellant.
16. This Court is of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal gravely erred
in holding that the appellants are not entitled for any compensation u/s 124(A)
of the Act, because the deceased jumping from the running train by his own
negligence and sustained severe injuries and succumbed to death, due to his
own negligence. In contrary there was a substantive material to consider that
the deceased fell from the running train because of push and pull of the
passengers and thus, it was untoward incident as no contrary evidence has
been brought on record by the railway authorities, even if, it was to be
assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own
negligence, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable u/s
124(A) of the Act. For ready reference, relevant Chapter are reproduced as
under:-
"8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability
of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due
to accidents. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has
definition clauses. Clause (c) defines "untoward incident" which
insofar as relevant for the present case is as under:
"123. (c) 'untoward incident' means--
(1)(i)-(iii)
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers."
9. Section 124-A of the Act provides as follows:
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward
incidents.--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."
17. As per Clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passenger would be an "untoward incident". As per section 124(A),
the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of
untoward incident. On perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the
learned Tribunal has framed issue no.1 and 2, as to whether the deceased was
a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the time of occurrence as
alleged untoward incident, to which, the learned Tribunal after considering
the oral evidence coupled with the documents, gave a finding in issue no.1 in
para-7 of the judgment that the deceased was travelling from Betul to Bhopal
in Andaman Express vide Ticket No.AE675471373 and the incident occurred.
It is also confirmed from the documents that the said travel ticket was seized
from the deceased which is marked as Ex.A-4 and the true copy of the said
ticket is available in the file and the learned Tribunal concluded that at the
time of incident, the deceased was a bonafide passenger, therefore, this Court
is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the
learned Tribunal and in view of the finding of the learned Tribunal, the
incident occurred, the deceased fallen from the running train due to jerk and
causes death, therefore, the incident falls under the category of untoward
incident. The case is squarely covered under section 124(A) of the Act of
1989 and not in its proviso. To strengthen the same, the DRM report marked
as exhibit-R-1 dated 14.12.2018, mentioned in para-2 & 3 that the deceased
died due to fallen from the train and the police investigation report also
mentioned in para 3 & 4 opined that the deceased died due to various injuries
on the dead body after falling from the train due to which his both leg being
cut by train. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased died due to
jumping from the running train.
18. Another plea taken by the Railway authorities that one of deceased's
friend Avinash examined by investigating agency. The deceased has informed
him by phone that he is coming from Betul to Bhopal in a train No.16031 and
picked him up at Habibganj station and when he was getting down from the
moving train and fell down from the train. To substantiate the said plea, he
was not examined to prove the statement which was recorded by the
investigating agency and on the instruction of the deceased, he came to the
railway station to receive him and he intentionally jumped from the running
train and causes injury and died. This reason cannot be allowed to sustain
because there is no rebuttal evidence produced against the same by the
respondent authority, therefore, the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal cannot
be permitted to sustain to disbelieve the claim of the claimants. Ravi Shankar,
Pointsman was examined as RW-1, he stated that deceased was standing at
the gate of the coach and tried to get down from the running train and the
passenger jumped from the moving train and the accident occurred. In his
cross-examination, he stated that he had seen the incident when the deceased
already under the train, again said that he was hanging at the door when he
saw him. The evidence of RW-1 shows inconsistencies, if really the deceased
jumped from the running train definitely fallen away from 5 to 10 feet from
the railway track. According to him, he was hanging at the door which clearly
proved that the said compartment was heavy crowded otherwise he would
have standing inside the compartment and due to heavy crowd in the
compartment, he was standing at the gate and due to jolting of the train, the
deceased unexpectedly fallen down from the running train between platform
and track and therefore, his both legs were cut and sustained head injury,
therefore, the plea taken by the authority that the deceased jumped from the
running train and causes the accident and died, is nothing but imaginary and
cannot be accepted. Therefore, the incident falls under the category of
untoward incident as per Section 123(c) and (2) of the Act of 1989 as he was
travelling with a valid ticket as a bonafide passenger, the compensation under
section 124-A of the Act would be available to the claimants, therefore, the
findings of the Tribunal that there is no untoward incident has to be rejected
as erroneous.
19. The circumstantial evidence, suggests that deceased -Santosh Sahu fell
down from a train carrying passenger and due to sudden jolt of the train,
unexpectedly fallen from the running train leading to his death.
The Apex Court in the case of Union of India V. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar1, while considering the definition of untoward incident with respect
to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers' in Section 123(c) of the Act of 1989 has observed that if we
attached the restrictive meaning to the said expression, we will be depriving a
large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway
accident and, therefore, a purposive and not literal interpretation should be
given to the said expression. Paragraph-14 of the said decision is usefully
quoted as under:-
"In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the
expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers' in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we
will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from
getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known
that in our country there are crores of people who travel by
railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air
or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow
meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large
number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and
1 (2009) ACC 270 (SC)
middle class people) from getting compensation under the
Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression
'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger
i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying
to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process.
In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation
should be given to the expression".
20. In the instant case, the inquest Panchayatnama marked Ex.A-3
reveals that the deceased fallen from the running train and died due to the
injuries sustained by him, followed by postmortem report and opined that the
death was due to shock and sepsis as a result of multiple injuries. On perusal
of DRM report and investigation report as stated supra, the fact remains that
the deceased fallen from the running train, sustained injuries and died. The
learned Tribunal has taken a wrong view without properly appreciating the
evidence on record and gave finding that the incident not under the untoward
incident. It is admitted fact that the deceased was travelling in the train by
purchasing valid ticket and the learned Tribunal has given a finding that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question in which he was
travelling and fallen while standing at the door of compartment and causes his
death towards an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Act, 1989,
thus it can be safely presumed that the appellants entitled claim compensation
under Section 124(A) of the Act, 1989.
The identical issue came before the Supreme Court in a case of
Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India2, wherein it has been held in para-7
as thus:
"7. ..........It is not denied by the Railways that M.
Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling
on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a
'passenger' for the purpose of section 124-A as clarified
by the explanation. It is now to be seen that under section
124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of
2 (2010) 12 SCC 443
any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the
railway administration.........."
21. In the instant case, the deceased is not coming within the
enumerated reasons under the proviso (a) to (e) of section 124-A of the Act,
the case of the deceased is coming within the main body of section 124-A of
the Railways Act, 1989 and claimants are entitled for compensation and it is
an untoward incident as he fallen from the running train with a valid ticket
from Betul to Bhopal in Andaman Express as a bonafide passenger, therefore,
the incident was an untoward incident comes under the definition of untoward
incident and even if Santosh Sahu-deceased may has been negligent as
observed by the Apex Court in the case of Jameela and Others (supra) that
act may be negligent or even grave, but it certainly is not a criminal act.
Negligence of the passenger does not have affect the liability of railway and
the claimants would be entitled for compensation. Therefore, in this case, as
well as although Santosh Sahu-deceased may have been negligent, however,
that cannot affect the compensation that would be payable to the appellants
under Section 124-A of the Act of 1989.
22. The Railways Authorities have not adduced any evidence to
demonstrate that the case falls under the exception in proviso to Section
124(A) of the Act of 1989. In the circumstances, the appellants would be
entitled to compensation u/s 124-A of Act of 1989.
23. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that
the deceased being a bonafide passenger died in an untoward incident and the
claimants have, thus, successfully established the case that the deceased died
in an untoward incident and they being the parents of the deceased are
entitled for compensation amount under The Railway Act, 1989.
24. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 28th June, 2021
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case
No.OA-IIu/BPL/214/2017 deserves to be set-aside and is hereby set-aside.
25. The appellants would be entitled to a claim of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lacs Only) as compensation in accordance with the prevailing law.
The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent/Railway within a
period of eight weeks from the date of this order.
26. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J
rk
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 1st Of March, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 2697 Of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1 Ramkishore Sahu, Aged about 67 Years,
S/o Shri Somu Sahu, R/o L.C.H.-349,
Ambedkar Nagar, Pathakheda, Ward
No.15, District- Betul (M.P.)
2. Yashoda Sahu, Aged about 54 years,
W/o Shri Ramkishore Sahu, R/o L.C.H.-
349, Ambedkar Nagar, Pathakheda
Ward No.15, District- Betul (M.P.)
.....Appellants
(By Ms. Neha Bhatia - Advocate)
AND
Union Of India Through General
Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur
(madhya Pradesh)
.....Respondent
(by Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment ? Yes/No
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
rk
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 1st Of March, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 2697 Of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1 Ramkishore Sahu, Aged about 67 Years, S/o
Shri Somu Sahu, R/o L.C.H.-349, Ambedkar
Nagar, Pathakheda, Ward No.15, District-
Betul (M.P.)
2. Yashoda Sahu, Aged about 54 years, W/o Shri
Ramkishore Sahu, R/o L.C.H.-349, Ambedkar
Nagar, Pathakheda Ward No.15, District-
Betul (M.P.)
.....Appellants
(By Ms. Neha Bhatia - Advocate)
AND
Union Of India Through General Manager, West
Central Railway, Jabalpur (madhya Pradesh)
.....Respondent
(by Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 21.02.2024
Pronounced on : 01.03.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gist :
< Head Note:
? Cases Referred
1. (2009) ACC 270 ©
2. (2010) 12 SCC 443
Date: 2024.03.04 17:50:44 +05'30'
