Blog

Title: Ramesh Laxmanrao Dighade & Ors. v. UoI

Decided on: 25/07/2023

+ FIRST APPEAL N O . 1422 OF 2019

CORAM: SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J

Facts of the case

The present appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10/05/2018, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal which dismissed the claim application of the appellants.

Amol Ramesh Dighade, a newly appointed member of the State Reserve Police Force, tragically died in a railway accident. He was on his way to Daund for training and had boarded the Nagpur-Bhusawal passenger train. Due to overcrowding, he sat near the toilet where he was hit by fellow passengers and fell off the moving train, resulting in his death.

The claimants, who are the family of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation from the railway authorities for the untimely demise of Amol Dighade. The respondent railway, however, contested the claim, arguing that the incident did not fall under the definition of an “untoward incident” as per the Railway Act. They claimed that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, implying that the railway was not liable to provide compensation.

Issues:

1)Was the incident leading to Amol Dighade’s death an “untoward incident” as defined by the Railway Act?

2) Was Amol Dighade a bona fide passenger of the train, and thus eligible for compensation?

Contentions:

The claimants argued that the deceased was indeed a bona fide passenger, as evidenced by the valid railway ticket found on his body. They pointed out that the initial burden of proof had been met and that the railway’s assertion of suicide lacked sufficient evidence. They cited legal precedents that emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of the Railway Act to ensure compensation for victims of railway accidents. Section 124-A of the Railway Act imposes strict liability or no-fault liability on railways in case of railway accidents.

The railway authorities contended that the incident did not constitute an “untoward incident” under the Section 123(c) of the Railway Act. They maintained that the deceased’s death was either a result of suicide or a breach of safety guidelines, implying that it was not the responsibility of the railway to provide compensation. It was contended that since the body was cut into pieces , it was a suicide. Also, none of the passengers complained of such happening. Thus, they believed that they should not held liable for suicide or run over of someone.

Decision:

After considering the facts, circumstances, and evidence presented by both parties, the judge concluded that the initial dismissal of the claim petition by the Railway Tribunal was erroneous. The presence of a valid railway ticket recovered from the deceased’s body was deemed sufficient evidence to establish that Amol Dighade was a bona fide passenger. The judge emphasized that a liberal interpretation of the Railway Act should be applied to ensure compensation for victims of railway accidents. The judge held that the incident was an “untoward incident” under the act, and ruled in favour of the claimants.

The judge allowed the appeal, quashed the earlier judgment, and ordered the respondent (Union of India) to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 to the claimants. The judge highlighted the importance of practical evidence over theoretical possibilities in determining liability in such cases.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

CLick to view judgment