Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6904 (ORI)

Swastitapa Singh Dandapat v. Union of India

2025-03-13

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sanjeeb K.Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellants have preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment dated 01.11.2019 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in OA(IIU)No.0052 of 2016. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 12.04.2011, while the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger from Bamara to Jharsuguda Railway Station by Hatia- Jharsuguda Passenger train (Amended), on the way, all of a sudden, he accidentally fell from the said train at Bamara railway station and sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to DDH Sundargath for further treatment, where he died while undergoing treatment. The applicants are the wife and parents of the deceased, sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-from the railway administration. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE A PPELLANTS 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The RW-1 and RW-2, who were the eyewitnesses of the incident, deposed on their written statement that they noticed one person trying to board the running train No. 58161 in a hurry, for which he slipped and fell and sustained injury and died. The DRM report reveals that the deceased died at Platform No.1 when the train had started and was gaining speed, resulting in loss of life. While boarding a running train, the deceased died due to a sheer negligence and carelessness act, which is not covered under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, which states about untoward incidents, and hence the railway is protected. (ii) In the case of Jameela and Ors. Vs. Union of India , (2010) 12 SCC 443 decided on 27th August, 2010, by the apex Court that if it is 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 under section 124A of the Act. Because the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration, subject to the proviso where the railway has no liability to pay compensation reason enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). (iii) In the present case, the death of the deceased is not due to suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. (iii) In the present case, the death of the deceased is not due to suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is not the case that he died due to a criminal act, or he was in a state of intoxication, or he was insane or died due to any natural cause or disease. The negligence on the part of the deceased is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause(c) to the proviso to section 124(A). A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Boarding a speeding train at platform No. 1 at Bamra Station may be a negligent act, even a rash/carelessness act, but without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Therefore, his falling from the train was, thus, clearly accidental in nature. (iv) The apex court in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others , 2008 INSC 577 interprets the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in two possible ways. The first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and there after falls down the train, while the second being that it includes the situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. The accident which did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124(A), then it clearly covered by the main body of section 724(A) of the Railway Act and not its proviso. (v) In the milestone judgement of Union of India vrs. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 decided on 9th May 2018, the apex Court has unable to uphold that criminal negligence is similar to self-inflicted injury, which disentitles the victim for compensation as the concept of 'self-inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury upon one's own body and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 decided on 9th May 2018, the apex Court has unable to uphold that criminal negligence is similar to self-inflicted injury, which disentitles the victim for compensation as the concept of 'self-inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury upon one's own body and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in case of liability based on 'no fault theory' and accordingly hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. (vi) The Court below neither emphasized the statement nor consider even given no remarks in the order about the affidavit filed before the learned court below is a failure of justice as it is cogent and trustworthy evidence that the deceased is a bonafide passenger of the train as the ticket was purchased but lost due to accident. The learned Tribunal have illegally ignored this evidence and has dismissed the claim application. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. IV. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE R ESPONDENTS 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The alleged incident is false, fabricated and does not fall within the ambit of section 124 A of the Railway Act. The travelling authority was found the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the alleged train. The statutory investigation report mentioned that RPF Shri G.Behera noticed one person board the running train trying to Train No.58161 (Hatia -Jharsuguda Passenger) resulting in falling down and sustained injury and died. The alleged incident occurred because of his self-inflicted/own criminal act. (ii) There is no illegality and committed any error while passing the impugned judgment passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. (vii) The deceased had fall down while boarding the running train due to his negligence’ act of the deceased. Hence there is no untoward incident comes under the Railway Act, the appellants are not entitle to pay any compensation from the present respondent. V. F INDINGS O F T HE T RIBUNAL 5. (vii) The deceased had fall down while boarding the running train due to his negligence’ act of the deceased. Hence there is no untoward incident comes under the Railway Act, the appellants are not entitle to pay any compensation from the present respondent. V. F INDINGS O F T HE T RIBUNAL 5. Upon considering the materials placed on record, the learned Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication and proceeded to decide the same upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties. (i)The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the deceased was not established to be a bona fide passenger. It found that the journey ticket was not recovered. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim could not be sustained in the absence of proof of lawful travel by the deceased. (ii) It is a specific case of the respondent that “no ticket was recovered” from the body of the deceased during the inquest. The deceased was never a bona fide passenger and had no legal authority to enter the railway premises. (iii) The deceased had fallen down while boarding a running train, due to the sheer negligence of the deceased and died thereafter. Such an incident is not covered under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, and the railway administration is protected and not liable to pay compensation to the applicant for such death. There is no fault or negligence on the part of the Railway Administration for this incident. VI. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and has meticulously examined the pleadings, materials on record and the reasoning assigned by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. The principal questions which arise for determination in the present appeal are: (i) whether the deceased can be regarded as a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act; and (ii) whether the death of the deceased while attempting to board the train constitutes an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act so as to entitle the appellants to statutory compensation. 7. 7. The legislative intent underlying Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 is founded upon the doctrine of strict or no-fault liability, which obligates the Railway Administration to compensate victims of railway accidents irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect or default on its part. The provision represents a welfare-oriented statutory mechanism aimed at providing prompt and effective relief to victims of railway accidents and their dependants. The only exceptions to such liability are those specifically enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A, namely suicide or attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or insanity, and death due to natural causes or disease. 8. The scope and ambit of the expression “untoward incident”, defined under Section 123(c), has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), wherein it was held that the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” must receive a liberal construction in order to advance the beneficial object of the legislation. The Court observed that the provision is not confined merely to cases where a passenger has already entered the train compartment, but also extends to situations where a person accidentally falls while attempting to board or deboard a train. 9. The aforesaid principle was reiterated in Jameela v. Union of India (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that even if a passenger falls from a train due to his own negligence, the same would not disentitle the dependants from claiming compensation under Section 124A. The Court emphasised that the liability under the said provision is statutory and strict in nature, and the concept of contributory negligence has no application in such cases unless the case falls within the limited exceptions provided in the proviso to Section 124A. 10. The legal position was further clarified in the landmark judgment of Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra), wherein the Supreme Court authoritatively held that death or injury occurring during the course of boarding or de-boarding a train would squarely fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident.” The Court further held that negligence of the victim cannot be equated with “self-inflicted injury”, since the latter necessarily involves an element of intention. Mere carelessness or rashness on the part of the passenger cannot be construed as a criminal act so as to defeat a claim under Section 124A. 11. Mere carelessness or rashness on the part of the passenger cannot be construed as a criminal act so as to defeat a claim under Section 124A. 11. In the present case, the materials on record reveal that the deceased fell down while attempting to board the Hatia-Jharsuguda Passenger train at Bamra Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries. The DRM report and the statements of witnesses indicate that the deceased slipped while boarding the train which had already begun to move. The circumstance in which the deceased fell from the train unmistakably points to an accidental fall, which is precisely the category of incident contemplated under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. 12. The Tribunal, however, rejected the claim primarily on the ground that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket was recovered from his person during the inquest. In the considered opinion of this Court, such reasoning suffers from a narrow and overly technical approach which runs contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 13. In Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held that non-recovery of a ticket from the body of the deceased cannot by itself lead to the presumption that the victim was not a bona fide passenger, particularly when surrounding circumstances indicate that the deceased was travelling by the train. It was further observed that the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the presumption once the claimant establishes a prima facie case of travel. 14. In the present case, the appellants had specifically pleaded that the deceased had purchased a journey ticket but the same was lost in the accident. The surrounding circumstances, including the place of occurrence at the platform, the DRM report, and the eyewitness accounts indicating that the deceased attempted to board the passenger train, lend substantial credence to the version put forth by the appellants. In the absence of any convincing evidence produced by the Railway Administration to establish that the deceased was a trespasser or unauthorized person, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger cannot be sustained. 15. Equally untenable is the finding of the Tribunal that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore would not fall within the ambit of an untoward incident. 15. Equally untenable is the finding of the Tribunal that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore would not fall within the ambit of an untoward incident. As authoritatively held in Jameela v. Union of India and Union of India v. Rina Devi, negligence on the part of the victim does not absolve the Railway Administration from its statutory liability. Boarding a running train may indeed be an act of imprudence, but such negligence cannot be equated with a “criminal act” or “self-inflicted injury” so as to attract the exclusionary clauses of the proviso to Section 124A. 16. The Tribunal appears to have overlooked the settled principle that the liability under Section 124A is founded on no-fault liability, where the primary inquiry is limited to whether the death occurred as a result of an untoward incident involving a passenger. Once such foundational facts are established, the Railway Administration can avoid liability only by demonstrating that the case falls within the specific exceptions enumerated in the proviso to the provision. No such circumstance is established in the present case. 17. Viewed in the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the death of the deceased occurred as a consequence of accidental falling from a train while attempting to board it, which squarely falls within the definition of an “untoward incident.” The appellants, being the dependants of the deceased, are therefore entitled to statutory compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act. 18. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition on the grounds of absence of ticket and alleged negligence of the deceased is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. VII. CONCLUSION: 19. In view of the foregoing analysis and the settled legal position governing claims arising out of untoward railway incidents, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. Accordingly, the judgment dated 01.11.2019 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in OA(IIU) No.0052 of 2016 is hereby set aside. 21. The appellants, being the dependants of the deceased, are held entitled to compensation as prescribed under the statutory scheme applicable to railway accident claims. The respondent–Railway Administration is directed to pay the admissible compensation to the appellants along with interest in accordance with law within a reasonable period. 21. The appellants, being the dependants of the deceased, are held entitled to compensation as prescribed under the statutory scheme applicable to railway accident claims. The respondent–Railway Administration is directed to pay the admissible compensation to the appellants along with interest in accordance with law within a reasonable period. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, with no order as to costs. 22. This Court further directs that 50 % of the compensation amount be paid to the claimant(s) by way of account transfer or cheque within three months from today and rest of the amount be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account for a period of three years or subject to the order of the Tribunal.