In a batch of appeals filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging a judgment dated 23-12-2016 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the Tribunal to award compensation to the claimants.
On 16-04-2011, a group of 8-10 persons went to Maihar to attend the tonsure ceremony of the appellant’s son. While returning on 17-04-2011, they boarded the Satna-Itarsi passenger train, which was overcrowded. When the train started moving, three victims fell from the train and were run over by another train, which resulted in their deaths. The Railway denied the said allegation by saying that the deceased persons were hit by a passing train, which led to their death.
The Tribunal concluded that the deceased persons had not boarded the train and that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident was an untoward accident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Court perused the record and noted that the Railways had satisfactorily proved that the deceased persons were not on board the said train, as the train did not pass through the Maihar Railway Station on the date of the accident. However, it was found that the deceased persons died by being run over by another train while they were crossing the railway lines.
Further, the Court opined that even if the deceased persons were crossing the railway tracks unauthorizedly to reach another platform, the claim for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act may still be maintainable if it is established that the death occurred due to an ‘untoward incident’ and that the railway administration failed in its statutory duty to ensure safety.
The Court said that contributory negligence or unauthorized entry alone would not absolve the railway administration of its liability, unless the case falls within the exceptions. The Court noted the statement of the loco pilot wherein he mentioned that while passing through the Maihar Railway Station, the deceased persons came onto the railway tracks and were run over. It was said that the statement was sufficient to presume that the act of the deceased persons was not deliberate, but only to save the child, who had no knowledge about the consequences of crossing tracks.
The Court held that the Railways had failed to prove that they had taken preventive measures to prevent persons from crossing the railway lines, and that their failure amounted to negligence or a breach of statutory duty. It was stated that this supported the finding that the deaths occurred due to an ‘untoward incident’ under Section 124-A, because if the crossing was accessible to a three-year-old child, it shows a systematic failure of the railway to restrict access.
Thus, the Court found that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the claims and set aside the impugned judgment, allowing the appeals. Lastly, the Court directed the Tribunal to award compensation to the claimants.
Appearances:
For Appellants – Mr. Vinayak Shah
For Respondents – Mr. Ashish Agrawal, Mr. Ranjan Agnihotri, Mr. O.P. Agnihotri, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Mishra
