The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation and should be interpreted liberally, with liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, being strict. To deny compensation, the injury must be strictly attributable to the statutory exceptions, which require a higher standard of proof than what was provided by the respondent.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri found that the record did not show any reliable independent eyewitness or cogent medical evidence to substantiate the plea of self-inflicted injury. The reliance on the positive assertion of the attending doctor was deemed insufficient to substantiate intoxication, especially since a person suffering from traumatic amputation, shock, and acute pain may not be in a cooperative state, which cannot ipso facto be attributed to alcohol consumption.
Referring to the precedents which established that a mere recording of the smell of alcohol, without scientific evidence such as a blood alcohol test, is insufficient to deny compensation, the Bench quashed the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Further, considering the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained, i.e., amputation above the knee of the left leg, the appellant was held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 8 Lakh along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realisation.
Briefly, the appellant had alleged that while travelling from New Delhi to Basti in the Vaishali Express train, he was compelled to stand near the gate of the compartment due to a heavy rush. Owing to a sudden jerk of the train and the thrust given by passengers, he fell and suffered amputation of his left leg.
The Railway Claims Tribunal found that the appellant was a bona fide passenger holding a valid train ticket but rejected his claim for compensation, concluding that his injuries were self-inflicted and occasioned by his own state of intoxication, and not due to any “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Tribunal based its conclusions on the hospital discharge summary and the evidence of the attending doctor, to infer that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.
Appearances:
Advocate Rajan Sood, for the Appellant
CGSC Neeraj Kumar and Advocate Shashwat, for the Respondent
