Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court held that Railways cannot be held liable for shortage of goods booked at “owner’s risk” unless negligence or misconduct is proved under Section 97, Railways Act, 1989. The Court clarified the burden of proof under Section 65(2) and dismissed the compensation claim.
Supreme Court advised the Indian Railways to adopt effective measures to address overcrowding in trains, observing that overcrowding frequently results in passengers falling from moving trains and suffering fatal injuries.
“The Railways Act is a beneficial legislation, and even in criminal matters, circumstantial evidence is taken into consideration for deciding whether the offence was committed or not.”
“The primary facts to enforce the strict liability of the railway administration are established and the fact that the Tribunal unjustifiably rejected the claim, did not defeat such vested right in the event the dependent/claimant died after preferring an appeal.”
Setting aside the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal and awarding compensation to legal representatives of the deceased 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.
Around 22 benches of the Railway claims Tribunal have been set up at different parts of the country to decide the application for compensation
The Delhi High Court held that “the petition was a mala fide attempt to throw mud on the reputation of the incumbent and is a gross abuse of process.”
by Abhijith Christopher*
Delhi High Court: V. Kameswar Rao, J., refuses to grant relief to the claimant who urged to include 10 years of practice