While dealing with an appeal filed by the Union of India against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which had awarded Rs. 8 lakhs with 9% interest to the dependants of Hariprasad Gupta, the Gujarat High Court has held that where an authorised catering waiter, engaged through a railway contractor under a subsisting catering contract, falls from a running train during the course of on-board duty, the case falls within the scope of an “untoward incident” under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Such a case is governed by strict liability or “no fault” liability, and compensation cannot be denied merely on the ground that the victim was negligent while moving in or around the train.
The Court also held that the theory of self-inflicted injury was not available on the facts, because there was no evidence of intention by the deceased to cause harm to himself. Mere negligence, even if alleged, could not be converted into self-inflicted injury. The Court further upheld the finding that the claimants had discharged the initial burden of showing that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, and the Railways had failed to rebut that case with evidence.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J. C. Doshi noted that the Tribunal had examined the record in detail and found that the deceased was working as a waiter under the administrative control of M/s Boon Catering Pvt Ltd., which was carrying out on-board catering work under contract with Western Railway. The Tribunal had treated outsourced catering staff doing authorised on-board work as standing on the same footing as a railway servant on duty, especially because they were performing catering work in the interest and benefit of the Railways under a valid contractual arrangement.
The Court also took note of the Tribunal’s reliance on the inquest panchnama, identification panchnama and other accident records, all of which showed that the deceased was servicing as a vendor/waiter in the train and accidentally died after falling from the running train. The Tribunal had further held that such falling was accidental and came within the ambit of an “untoward incident”.
On the plea of self-inflicting injury, the Bench held that the Railways could not rely on that concept merely because the deceased was moving from one compartment to another in a running train. The Bench observed that “self-inflicted injury” requires intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. It held that accepting the Railways’ argument would amount to importing contributory negligence into a “no fault” liability regime, which is impermissible under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Bench further found no merit in the argument based on expiry of the deceased’s identity card. It observed that the catering contract between Western Railway and M/s Boon Catering Pvt Ltd. remained in force from March 02, 2015 to March 03, 2020, covering the date of the incident. It also noted that M/s Boon Catering Pvt Ltd., though a party to the case, had not come forward to deny that the deceased was its employee, and the Railway administration had not led evidence to prove otherwise. The widow’s affidavit stating that the deceased was travelling as an authorised vendor/waiter was also not effectively challenged in cross-examination.
Briefly, the case of the claimants was that Hariprasad Gupta was travelling in Porbandar–Muzaffarpur Motihari Express as an authorised hawker/waiter of M/s Boon Catering Pvt Ltd. On the night of June 28–29, 2018, while moving from one compartment to another near Chamaraj Railway Station, he lost balance due to sudden jerk and jolt of the running train, fell down, suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, awarded Rs. 8 lakhs with 9% interest to the dependants.
The Railways challenged the award on three main grounds: first, that the deceased suffered a self-inflicting injury while changing compartments in a running train; second, that the Tribunal wrongly treated him as a railway employee; and third, that his identity card issued by M/s Boon Catering Pvt Ltd. had expired before the date of the incident, showing that he was not an authorised waiter and therefore not a bonafide passenger on that day.
The claimants replied that the catering contract between the Railways and M/s Boon Catering Pvt Ltd. was subsisting at the time of the accident. They also pointed out that the catering company itself had not denied that the deceased was its employee.
