Bombay High Court: The instant appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench (“Tribunal”), whereby the claim for compensation from the Railways on the account of injuries sustained in an untoward incident were dismissed. The single-Judge Bench of G.A. Sanap, J.*, setting-aside the impugned order, perused the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 (“1989 Act”), and held that the appellant, who died during the pendency of the instant appeal, was a bona fide passenger, and his injuries were not self-inflicted. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant were granted compensation of Rs. 8,00,000. The Court stated that the deceased appellant’s act of deboarding from the wrong train cannot be equated with a criminal act and the injuries sustained by him while deboarding, cannot be termed as self-inflicted injuries.
Background
The deceased appellant (“deceased”) had been severely injured in August 2015 when he was travelling from Gondia to Balaghat on a valid ticket. However, upon boarding, he realised that he had boarded the wrong train, that was bound towards Ballarshah instead of Balaghat, in the opposite direction. By the time he realised his error, the train had started moving from the railway platform slowly, during which time, the deceased attempted to deboard the train panickily, and due to a sudden jerk, he fell, and his legs were crushed under the wheels. Both of his legs had to be amputated, and he succumbed to his injuries during the pendency of the instant case.
The appeal was survived by the legal representatives of the deceased (“appellants”), who claimed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and that his injury was in an untoward incident.
The respondent (“Railways”) on the other hand opposed their claim and stated that the deceased’s ticket was invalid for the train he had boarded, and that the injury sustained by him was due to his criminal negligence and was a self-inflicted injury.
Issues and Court’s findings
-
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket at the time of the incident?
The Court perused the 1989 Act, and referred to Section 2(29), wherein “passenger” has been defined as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The Court read Section 2(29) with Section 124A of the 1989 Act, the explanation of which states that “passenger” includes—a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a passenger train on any date, or a valid platform ticket, and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
The Court noted that the abovementioned provisions of the 1989 Act did not stipulate anywhere that for a person to be a passenger, they must hold a ticket only for a particular train on which they plan to travel; the definition of a passenger cannot be narrowly interpreted.
The Court referred to Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, wherein the Supreme Court held that Section 124A of the 1989 Act must be interpreted in a liberal and purposive manner to avail the benefits of this provision to the claimant.
Therefore, the Court held that the evidence sufficiently concluded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket.
-
Whether the deceased sustained injuries in an untoward incident as per Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (“1989 Act”)?
To answer this, the Court referred to Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, wherein, the Supreme Court had held that the death or injury in the course of boarding or deboarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’, and the victim will not fall under the ‘self-inflicted injury’ proviso to Section 124A of the 1989 Act, as the application of that proviso requires the intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence. It was further held that the defence of negligence is unavailable when the liability is based on ‘no fault theory’.
The Court perused the evidence of the Guard of the train, who had stated that while the train was proceeding at a slow speed towards Ballarshah, one passenger jumped from the moving train, about which he had informed to the Loco Pilot who then stopped the train. This information was forwarded to the Station Master, Gondia, which had been recorded by him. However, upon further perusal, the Court found that the Station Master’s record and the Guard’s Memo Book, both did not mention “one person jumped from the moving train”.
The Court emphasised that these were vital pieces of documentary evidence and found that they were insufficient to prove their contention that the deceased had jumped from the moving train.
The Court pointed out that the act of deboarding the train in the situation illustrated in the instant case could not be said to be a criminal act, and the injury sustained therefrom, could not be said to be self-inflicted. If could however be termed as rash and negligent, since the deceased had the option of pulling the stop chain on the train.
However, the Court noted that in the factual situation of the case, the deceased was bound to suffer a sudden shock and anxious moments. A passenger in such a situation would attempt to deboard the train if it was moving at a slow speed, and gong through such an anxious moment, the passenger could commit a mistake.
Therefore, the Court stated that a rash and negligent act cannot be equated with a criminal act resulting in self-inflicted injury and held that the injury sustained by the deceased was an untoward incident as under Section 123(c)(2) of the 1989 Act.
Quantum of compensation
The Court referred to the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (“1990 Rules”), wherein the compensation for double amputation through leg or thigh etc has been provided. The Court took note of the 2016 Notification by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) that revised the 1990 Rules.
Based on the aforementioned Rules and Notification, the Court awarded the appellants a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 without interest, to be paid by the Railways within four months from the date of upload of this judgment. However, the appellants were held entitled to 6% interest per annum from the date of this judgment till the realisation of the amount, should the compensation amount not be deposited with the appellants within four months as stipulated above. The Court further directed that 50% of the compensation shall be entitled to Appellant 1, who was the wife of the deceased, and the rest be paid in equal shares to the other appellants.
Therefore, the Court set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal and allowed the First Appeal.
[Ashok v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1846, decided on 20-06-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice G.A. Sanap
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: S.G. Barbate, Advocate
For the Respondent: N.P. Lambat, Advocate
