Manohar & Anr. vs Union of India

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 16.3.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Case No.OA (IIu)/NGP/133/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants in the matter.

The case of the present appellants before the Tribunal was that the son of the appellants, who was travelling on 19.4.2016 from Chhindwara to Baitul by purchasing a ticket of second class general compartment bearing a ticket no.3839892, has boarded in a train Penchvalley Fast Passenger Train No.59386. The general compartment was crowded and the deceased could not get the proper place in the compartment. Therefore, he was standing in the passage near the door inside the general compartment of the said train.

It is also submitted that while he was standing near the door of the train in a general compartment, the train which was running in high speed, near the place of Umariya-Faladi Railway Station, at about 23.40 pm, the general bogie gets jerk and due to the sudden big jerk, the deceased fell down from the train and sustained fatal injuries on his head and died on the spot. The passengers at that time stopped the train and the said fact was informed by the Railway Authorities to the appellants and on the basis of this untoward accident, they claimed compensation in the matter.

The claim petition was strongly contested by the respondent-railway administration. They have filed their written statement before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 2.8.2019 and stated that in the said matter the enquiry is conducted by the railway administration and it is found that the incident took place because of the carelessness and the negligence of the deceased. It is stated that during the investigation, the Railway Police had prepared the spot and inquest panchanamas wherein there is no mention of seizure of any journey ticket from the possession of the deceased, therefore, deceased cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. It is further submitted that the co-passengers, who were travelling with the deceased, their statements are recorded by them and as per their statements, it is clear that the deceased was negligent and sitting near the door of the train and while listening the music on his mobile phone, his mobile phone was dropped and to collect the said mobile phone, he has made attempt and in that attempt, he fell down from the train. As such, according to the respondent, it is the whole negligence of the deceased in the matter and, therefore, his case does not fall under the category of untoward incident, rather it is a self inflicted injury and, therefore, he is not entitled for the compensation.

Before the Railway Tribunal, the appellant no.1 has filed his affidavit reiterating the facts which he has stated in the application. The appellant no.1 was cross-examined by the respondent-department.

It is pertinent to note that no one was examined on behalf of the respondent before the Railway Tribunal. The entire case of the respondent was on the basis of enquiry report which was furnished by them before the Railway Tribunal.

In this background, the Railway Tribunal has decided the claim application and by holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and there was a negligence on the part of the deceased, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation.

The appellants, who approached before this court, in the background of above said facts, has relied upon Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. According to him, considering the entire case which is put-forth by the respondent as per their DRM report, even the same is accepted, the act of the deceased do not constitute any criminal act nor it is a self inflicted injury. To consider this submission of the applicant, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 124-A of the Railways Act which reads as under :

The above said provision makes it clear that compensation on account of untoward incident is available to the claimants, but such compensation is not payable in the case if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by him, self-inflicted injury, his own criminal act, any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; any natural cause or disease or medical surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India .vs. Rina Devi, reported in 2018 ALL SCR 1750, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issues which are generally required to be dealt with by the various courts, has also considered the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held for bringing the case under the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ it would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Para 16.6 of this judgment is relevant to consider the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ which reads thus :

It would be further pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has occasioned to consider the identical aspect in the case of Jameela and others .vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3705. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding this identical controversy, has held that under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the liability to pay the compensation is of the department regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default and exception is only in the case of death of the passenger or injury caused to him for any of the reason enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this judgment are from para 7, 10, 11 and 12 which are relevant in the matter, reads thus :

It is further pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Shrikumar Gupta and another .vs. Union of India, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1115 in SLP © No.7188/2024, has again held that even in a case if the deceased had jumped off the running train, it was incumbent upon enquiry authority to prove the same. However, if it is not proved, then the railway administration is required to pay the compensation. In this regard, Para 10 of this judgment is relevant to be reproduced as under :

In the present case if the submission of the respondent-himself is taken into consideration, it is clear that the deceased was sitting near the gate of the train and listening the music on his mobile phone. At that time, due to some reason, his balance was disturbed and he fell down from the train. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the deceased was intending to commit suicide or inflict injury for himself. Therefore, the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the present case do not fall under the category of ‘self inflicted injury’.

The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the said legal position which is not disputed but every case is required to be decided on the basis of the facts of that case. According to the respondent, in the present matter, in a DRM enquiry, they have recorded the statements of co-passengers in the matter. The statement of co-passenger clearly shows that they were also travelling with the deceased in the same general compartment and according to them, the deceased was sitting near the door and he was listening the music on his mobile. However, when his mobile was fell down, he lost his balance and the accident was caused in the matter. Therefore, according to the present respondent, it was negligence of the deceased and, therefore, it is a case of ‘self inflicted injury’ and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the appellants are not entitled for the compensation in the matter.

In support of his submission, the respondent has relied upon the judgment of coordinate bench of this court in the case of Ramprasad s/o Laxman Raikwar .vs. Union of India in First Appeal No.1458/2019, decided on 13.12.2024 and Yogeshwari wd/o Raju Gajapure and others .vs. Union of India in First Appeal No.710/2014 decided on 07.06.2023 to demonstrate that the burden to prove the incident occurred was an untoward incident is on the claimant and if he failed to discharge their burden, then the appellants could not be entitled for any compensation.

In the background of this legal submission of both the parties and the evidence which is available on record in the present matter, to deal with the first submission of the respondent that the appellants have to discharge their preliminary burden by proving that it was an untoward accident, in my opinion, the claimants were not eyewitness of the incident, therefore, they cannot prove the said fact. What is expected from the claimants is to bring on record that the deceased was travelling in a train and during the boarding, unboarding or in travelling, the deceased has met with an accident or any untoward incident was occurred and he caused death in such incident. Therefore, the submission of the respondent that the appellants failed to discharge their burden cannot be accepted in such circumstances.

In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the Railway Administration, at their level, has conducted the enquiry into the matter. The respondent has relied upon the statements of the co-passengers namely, Sushiladevi and Namdeo. According to the respondent, as per their statements, the deceased was travelling in the same compartment. He was sitting near the door of the train and when he was listening the music or talking on his mobile phone, the mobile fell down and he lost his balance. In my opinion, from the documents of the railway administration, it is itself clear that the deceased was travelling in a general compartment along with the co-passengers and the incident occurred. Therefore, from the overall documents available on record, it is established that the incident took place in a train where the co-passengers were travelling with the deceased.

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India .vs. Rina Devi (supra), once it is established on record that the accident took place during the travelling of the deceased or while boarding or de-boarding a train, then the burden is shifted on the railway administration to establish the fact that the incident comes under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

Here, in the present case, from the evidence which is available on record in the nature of DRM enquiry report, it is nowhere established that the case of the deceased falls in any category of the proviso of Section 124-A of the Act. The submission of the respondent as a ‘self inflicted injury’ as explained in the case of Rina Devi (supra) is not established in the present case. Rather it can be concluded that it was at the most negligence of the deceased.

In the present matter, there are no such circumstances brought on record that the deceased was any time was intending to commit the ‘self inflicted injury’ or suicide or any criminal act as stated as per the proviso of Section 124-A of the said Act. From the evidence which is available on record, the only conclusion can be drawn that it is the negligence of the deceased and because of his negligence, he lost his life.

In respect of the submission of the respondent that deceased was not a bonafide passenger, in my opinion, the submission is incorrect, so also findings recorded by Tribunal in the matter are perverse in nature. It is own case of respondent that, on the statement of co-passenger travelling with deceased, namely Namdeo and Sushila, it is a case of negligence of deceased. The co-passenger stated that on a valid ticket, they have boarded in general coach of train. Hence, only conclusion can be drawn that deceased was a bonafide passenger of train.

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as discussed above, if the case does not fall under the proviso of Section 124-A of the said Act, then in that case, the railway administration is bound to pay the compensation to the unfortunate claimants and in the present case, the appellants are the parents of the deceased.

In view of the settled legal position as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and from the facts of the present case, it is clear that the incident occurred in the matter is due to negligence of the deceased and not the willful act to commit any act, hence in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has committed an error of dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the following order is passed :