Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J
1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in Case No. O.A.(IIU)/235/2016, which dismissed the claim application for compensation arising out of the injury alleged to have occurred in an ‘untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 22.07.2016, the injured in person, Dipak Sahoo, a bona fide passenger and holder of a valid journey ticket, was travelling by theHowrah-Vasco-Da-Gama Express from Cuttack to Vasco-Da-Gama Railway Station.
(ii) During the journey, the compartment was overcrowded. Due to sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and the push and pull of fellow passengers, the deceased lost balance and accidentally fell from the running train between Anakapalle and Bayyavaram Railway, and in consequence thereof, sustained grievous bodily injuries.
(iii) The appellants thereafter filed Original Application No. 235 of 2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the injury sustained by the Appellant, resulting from the untoward incident.
(iv) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed five issues for consideration. After detailed examination, it concluded that the Appellant was not a bona fide passenger and not a victim of any untoward incident. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed.
(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed in the Original Application No. 235 of 2016 by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Appellant respectfully submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, dismissing the Original Application in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the injury of the Appellant is erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record, and suffers from gross misappreciation of material facts and legal provisions.
(ii) The Tribunal did not dispute the authenticity or genuineness of the Railway Journey Ticket produced by the injured, nor did the Respondent lead any contra evidence to discredit the same. The Tribunal however, proceeded on the premise that the injuries sustained by Appellant were self-inflicted injury, thereby disentitling him to compensation.
(iii) The Appellants contended that the documentary evidence issued by the Police Authorities unequivocally establishes that the Appellant had sustained injuries as a consequence of an untoward incident, occurring in the course of a bona fide train journey. It was argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate or to take judicial notice of these vital and corroborative evidentiary materials, which lent credence to the Appellant’s case. The rejection of the claim on the ground that the injuries were self-inflictedand thus fell within the exceptions enumerated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, was asserted to be erroneous, perverse and unsustainable in law.
(iv) Section 124A of the Railways Act, being a beneficial and welfare legislation imposes a strict and statutory liability on the Railways to compensate the Appellants, unless the case falls within the express statutory exceptions, none of which are applicable here. Once the injuries results from an untoward incident occurring in the course of railway travel, the liability of the Railways to pay compensation arises ipso facto and automatically. So, the Tribunal’s contrary finding is perverse, contrary to the legislative intent.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions:
(i) In cases of untoward incidents, the initial burden of establishing the claim lies upon the claimant. In the present matter, the Appellanthas failed to satisfactorily discharge this burden. From the circumstances surrounding the alleged injury, it does not appear to be a case of accidental fall from a running train but indicates a self-inflicted injury. Such conduct falls within the exceptions contemplated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Respondents.
(ii) A meticulous scrutiny of the contemporaneous documentary corpus and the surrounding factual matrix militates against the hypothesis of an accidental fall from a moving train, and contrarily, yields a preponderant inference of a self-inflicted injury. Such conduct, being ex facie subsumed within the exclusionary ambit of the proviso to Section 124A, is statutorily immunized from the operation of the rule of strict liability that otherwise attaches under the main provision.
(iii) The Tribunal has upon reasoned appreciation of the evidentiary record, rightly disbelieved the testimony of the Appellant, holding that the injuries sustained were the result of his own rash and negligent conduct. It was observed that the Appellant had been travelling on the footboard of the coach, which is an inherently unsafe and prohibited place to travel. The occurrence being a direct consequence of the Appellant’s own fault and criminal negligence, the Respondents- Railways cannot be held liable for the same.
iv. The Respondents have further urged, with persuasive force, that there was no contemporaneous record or report of Alarm Chain Pulling following the alleged fall, which circumstance materially undermines the Appellant’s narrative and casts serious doubt upon the authenticity of the claim. In the absence of any cogent, credible, or corroborative evidence establishing bona fide passengership, the indispensable precondition for the invocation of statutory liability under Section 124A Railways Act, 1989, remains unfulfilled. The claim, thus bereft of the requisite factual and legal foundation, stands rendered unsustainable and non- maintainable within the statutory framework, as the sine qua non for attracting the principle of strict liability is conspicuously absent.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench heard the parties, perused the documents on record, and upon the basis of the pleadings framed five issues for consideration.
6. On Issues 1, 2 and 3, which were taken up together, the Tribunal observed that the initial burden of proof rested upon the applicantto establishthat the Appellant was a bona fide passenger and that theinjuries sustained were the result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Upon due appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal recorded that the journey ticket had indeed been produced and not disputed bythe Respondents, thereby establishing the bona fide passenger status of the Appellant.
7. The Tribunal further stated that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were attributable to his own rash and negligent conduct. It was observed that the Appellant had been travelling on the footboard of the coach, an act which is inherently unsafe, impermissible, and fraught with danger. The Tribunal concluded that the occurrence was the direct and proximate consequence of the Appellant’s own fault and criminal negligence, thereby disentitling him to any compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
8. The Tribunal held that such circumstances of the case clearly indicated that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were self-inflicted, and not the result of an accidental fall from the train. Consequently, the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal observed that the sine qua non for invoking Section 124A, namely, proof of an untoward incident during the course of a bona fide journey, had not been established. It was therefore concluded that the injury was attributed to the Appellant’s own fault, and the Railways stood protected under the exception clause Section 124A of the Act.
9. Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the applicants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application was thus dismissed.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
10. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
11. The central questions that arise for consideration are:
(i) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
(ii) whether the incident amounts to an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?
(iii) whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?
12. This Court observed that once the primary facts, namely, the occurrence of an “untoward incident” resulting in the injury of a bona fide passenger, are duly established, the liability of the Railway Administration becomes absolute under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court held that the absence of any wrongful act, negligence, or default on the part of the Railway Administration is irrelevant, as the statutory provision enshrines the doctrine of strict liability. Accordingly, once the criteria under Section 124A are met, the Railway is statutorily bound to compensate, irrespective of fault.
13. At the very threshold, it becomes necessary to delineate the statutory architecture that governs the field of liability under the Railways Act, 1989. Section 124A of the Act incorporates within its fold the doctrine of strict or no-fault liability, thereby dispensing with the requirement of proving negligence, wrongful act, or default as a precondition to the accrual of compensatory entitlement. The provision, in clear and unambiguous terms, mandates that once it stands established that the death or injury in question has ensued from an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act, the Railway Administration becomes statutorily bound to pay compensation to the victim.
14. The legislative intent underlying this provision is manifestly remedial and welfare-oriented, aimed at ensuing certainly and uniformly in compensation for victims of railway mishaps. The liability so created is absolute in character, admitting of exception only to the extent expressly carved out in the proviso to Section 124A- which, being in the nature of an exclusion clause, is to be construed narrowly and restrictively.
15. On the issue of bona fide, this Court is constrained to observe that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding with regard to the recovery of journey ticket from the possession Appellant. However, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal suffers from a misdirection in law as to the nature and extent of the claimant’s evidentiary burden under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The finding that the Appellant was a bona fide passenger ought to have led to a corresponding inference that the injury arose out of an untoward incident, unless rebutted by cogent evidence falling within the statutory exceptions.
16. On the contrary, the Ld. Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were self-inflicted, and not the consequence of an accidental fall from the train. On such reasoning, it held that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
17. Upon a meticulous reappraisal of the record, this Court is satisfied that the bona fide passengership of the Appellant stands duly established. The medical report, official documents prepared in the ordinary course of public duty- carry a presumption of correctness under Section 119(e) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and corroborate the surrounding circumstances indicative of lawful travel and the occurrence of the incident during a train journey. The cumulative probative effect of these materials leaves no manner of doubt that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger at the relevant time.
18. Similar sentiments have also been echoed by the Supreme Courtin the case of Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and Others (2023) 19 SCC 116, whereunder it has been held that:
“9.………………………… By the explanation of the said section classifying about “passenger”, it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
10. This Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises.
“29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railways premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on facts shown or attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with form case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.”
19. In view of the settled legal position, once the bona fide status of the deceased is established through credible evidence, the claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 becomes statutorily enforceable.
20. Reliance may be placed on Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India (2024) 8SCR 391, wherein it was held that the initial burden would be on claimant, which may be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim.
21. In the present case, while it is undisputed that the applicants were able to produce the valid journey ticket,the medical report unequivocally recorded that the Appellant suffered injuries due to the accidental fall from a running train, thereby sustaining the occurrence as an untoward incident. Further, the Appellant, categorically deposed that hehad purchased a valid journey ticket, and a fact was duly corroborated by oral and documentary evidence adduced during the proceedings. These testimonies constitute direct and reliable evidence, reinforced by contemporaneous police ad medical records, lending undoubted credence to the claim.
22. In contrast, the Respondents failed to bring on record any cogent or rebuttal evidence to disprove the claim and instead relied upon speculative and inconclusive observations made in the DRM inquiry report, which does not carry binding evidentiary value in judicial proceedings. Accordingly, in absence of any credible rebuttal from the Respondents, and in view of the consistent and corroborated evidence presented by the Appellant, status as bona fide passenger and the occurrence of an untoward incident stand established, thereby entitling the claimants to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
23. This position was firmly settled in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, wherein it was held that the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and must, therefore, be accorded a liberal and purposive interpretation. The Court observed that adopting a restrictive meaning to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” under Section-123(c) of the Railways Act would defeat the object of the legislation and unjustly deprive a large number of bona fide railway passengers of their rightful claim to compensation in railway accidents.
24. Accordingly, the incident squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” and none of the statutory exceptions enumerated under the proviso of Section 124A are attracted in the present case. As such the statutory liability of the Railway Administration stands attracted, and the claim for compensation is legally maintainable under the framework of strict liability provided by the Act.
VI. CONCLUSION:
25. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has established that he was a bona fide passenger and that the injury occurred as a result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. None of the statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A are attracted.
26. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 235 of 2016 are set aside.
27. The appeal is, therefore, ALLOWED.
28. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs 8,00,000 (Rupees eight lakhs) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until payment. The respondent Railways shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within three months, whereupon it shall be disbursed to the appellant in accordance with law.
29. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
