Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“In matters governed by beneficial legislation, the benefit of doubt should go in the person’s favour who has met with the accident. Railways could have supported its case by examining the co-passenger or guard or by leading expert evidence to show that a person falling from a moving train could not get entangled in its wheels.”
“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 Court reaffirmed that proceedings under Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities.
“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.”
“This Court has no hesitation in holding that the reasons given by the Railways Claim Tribunal in rejecting the claim are absolutely perverse. The plea that the injuries were suffered by the appellant/claimant due to his own criminal negligence is also not fathomable in law.”
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.
A person who comes from a village looking for a job, boards a passenger train holding a valid journey ticket, alights from the train and is trying to exit the Railway Station in the absence of overbridge being forced to walk along the tracks and gets hit by another train and dies, cannot be said to be intentionally careless or negligent.