The High Court of Bombay allowed the appeal, observing that in the absence of any evidence of trespassing or criminal act, the death of a bonafide passenger due to a fall from a train constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ under the Railways Act, 1989, entitling compensation.
The case arose from an order passed by the railways’ Claims Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant, daughter of the deceased, on the sole ground that the incident does not constitute an untoward incident. The deceased, a housemaid, was travelling from Nallasopara to Santacruz on December 28, 2010, with a valid season pass when she died after falling from the train at around 6.30 AM-7 AM. The tribunal found that the deceased was a bonafide passenger; however, it concluded that she was knocked down while crossing the track and, therefore, rejected the claim.
During the proceedings, the appellant submitted that there was no evidence to establish trespassing and that the tribunal had relied on inconsistent and hearsay documents. On the other hand, the respondent supported the tribunal conclusion by referring to reports suggesting that the deceased was hit while crossing the railway track.
Hearing the appeal, the bench of Justice Jitendra Jain noted that the station master’s report recorded the cause of death as not known and did not attribute the incident to trespassing. It further noted that the inquest panchnama and police papers were not based on eyewitness accounts and contained inconsistencies with the primary record. The court also held that no medical evidence was presented by the railways to establish that the deceased was crossing the tracks.
It further held that there was no material to attract the exclusion under Section 124A(c) of the Act of 1989 relating to “one’s own criminal act,” as there was no evidence that the deceased had trespassed or unlawfully entered railway premises.
Accordingly, the court reserved the finding of the tribunal on the issue of the untoward incident and held that the deceased died on account of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers with a bonafide ticket, thereby entitling the appellant to compensation. Thus, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to pay compensation of ₹4,00,000/- with certain condition.
Appearance:
For Appellant- Advocate Vaneet Khosla
For Respondent- Advocate Pratik Irpatgire
