Bombay High Court Awards Compensation in Railway Accident Case, citing Proof of Negligence Not Required in Case of Strict Liability

Bombay High Court Awards Compensation in Railway Accident Case, citing Proof of Negligence Not Required in Case of Strict Liability

In a case concerning the unfortunate demise of a passenger during a mishap while travelling, the Bombay High Court overturned the Railway Claims Tribunal's order. The Court ruled in favour of the appellants (claimants), asserting their entitlement to ₹8 lakh compensation, along with an interest rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the petition until full realisation.

The Single Judge Bench, presided by Justice M.S. Jawalkar referred to the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaykumar and others [(2008) SCC 527] in which the principle of strict liability or no-fault liability in railway accidents was established. The Court observed that under Section 124-A, negligence does not need to be proven in cases of railway accidents. Once the initial burden is met, the railway is strictly liable to provide compensation.

In the case, Advocate N. R. Mankar represented the Appellant, while Advocate Neerja Choube appeared for the Respondents. The brief facts of the matter were as follows:

The deceased individual, Dilip, was on his way to Gangakhed Railway Station accompanied by his son, Avinash. Dilip purchased a railway ticket for his journey. After ensuring his father's boarding onto the train, Avinash departed from the station. Unfortunately, during this period, Dilip accidentally fell into an untoward incident that occurred between the platform and the moving train, leading to him being caught under the train's wheels.

Following the accident, the deceased received medical treatment at a Government Hospital but succumbed to his injuries and passed away.

In response to the incident, the Railway Claims Tribunal was approached, with the claimants asserting that the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident while traveling as a genuine passenger with a valid journey ticket. However, the respondent railway contested the claim, arguing that no railway ticket was found on the deceased's body and contending that the incident resulted from the deceased's own negligent actions, amounting to self-inflicted injury.

Upon review, the tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent railway, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the accident did not fall within the definition of an "untoward" incident. Instead, the tribunal deemed it to be a case of sheer negligence and considered it a self-inflicted injury. As a result, the claim application was rejected.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Bench determined that the claimants had effectively fulfilled the initial burden of proof concerning the purchase of a journey ticket. They presented an affidavit from the deceased's son, supporting the fact that a ticket had indeed been acquired for the journey.

The Bench further clarified that there was no evidence to suggest that the incident resulted from self-inflicted injury, which requires an intention to cause harm to oneself. Consequently, the Railway Claims Tribunal's ruling, categorising it as a self-inflicted injury and denying the appellants' claim, was deemed erroneous by the Bench.

Based on these observations, the Bench ruled in favour of the claimants, overturning the previous decision and allowing their compensation claim. The respondent, Union of India, was instructed to make the payment within a period of three months from the date of the Court's ruling.