Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from the dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, on the ground that the incident did not fall within the definition of an 'untoward incident' under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989. The appellants, parents of the deceased Srinivas Komuravelli, sought compensation for his death. On 24 September 2010, at around 11:30 p.m., the deceased was travelling from Dockyard Road railway station to Vikhroli railway station. He fell from the train at Sewri railway station and was hit by a train on the opposite track, resulting in his death. The inquest panchnama and police report confirmed recovery of a valid ticket for the journey from Vikhroli to Dockyard Road, establishing him as a bonafide passenger. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, reasoning that the deceased fell on the opposite track, which was not part of his journey. The High Court reversed this finding, holding that the incident squarely falls within the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which includes any accident of a nature not expected in the ordinary course. The court noted that due to rush at Sewri station, the deceased, standing near the door, may have been pushed and lost balance, falling onto the opposite track where he was hit by another train. The court emphasized that the definition of 'untoward incident' is broad and does not require the accident to occur on the same track or in the course of the passenger's specific journey. The railway failed to prove any exception under Section 124A, such as suicide or self-inflicted injury. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application until realization.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Untoward Incident - Section 123(c) - Accidental Falling - The deceased, a bonafide passenger, fell from a train due to rush at Sewri station and was hit by a train on the opposite track. The court held that this squarely falls within the definition of 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, as it is an accident of a nature not expected in the ordinary course. The fact that the deceased fell on the opposite track does not exclude it from being an untoward incident. (Paras 5-7) B) Railways Act - Bonafide Passenger - Burden of Proof - The recovery of a valid ticket from the deceased's body, confirmed by inquest panchnama and police report, establishes that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The burden then shifts to the railway to prove any exception, which was not discharged. (Para 4) C) Railways Act - Compensation - Section 124A - Strict Liability - Once an untoward incident is established involving a bonafide passenger, the railway is strictly liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, unless the incident falls within the exceptions under Section 124A (suicide, self-inflicted injury, etc.). The railway failed to prove any exception. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of a passenger who fell from a train and was hit by another train on an opposite track constitutes an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the claimants are entitled to compensation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 7 January 2015 is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application until realization.
Law Points
- Untoward incident
- bonafide passenger
- strict liability
- Railways Act
- 1989
- Section 123(c)
- Section 124A
- compensation
- accidental falling
- burden of proof
