Blog

Case title: Rojamani (since deceased represented by LRs) and Union Bank of India.

Case no: M.F.A. NO.3651/2016 (RCT)

Dated on: 19thApril, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

Facts of the case:

On 22.02.14 the deceased Jayamma along with her sister went to Channapatna railway station and purchased the railway ticket to go to Ashokapuram Mysore. Both the of them had to board the Tuticorin express and realised that the said train would not go to Ashokapuram they alighted from the train while alighting the deceased lost her balance and sustained injuries resulting in her death. The respondent railway disputed the claim and denied their liability by stating that the death was not due to accidental fall, within the Section 123 of the railway Act alighting from train which amounts to self-inflicted injuries by virtue of provision of sect124 of railway act. The railway tribunal while affirming that deceased was a bona-fide passenger but denied the compensation on the grounds that the fall of deceased was due to her own voluntary act.

Contentions of the appellant:

Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was an aged person and not a daily commuter. So, when she realized that she boarded the wrong train she alighted suddenly and lost her balance resulting to fatal injuries. In Jameela V. UOI, the counsel for the appellant held that the act amount to mere negligence and not criminal negligence. The counsel relied on the judgement of the SC of Rina Devi V. UOI , reported in 2018 AIR (SC) 2362 that death or injury in course of boarding or deboarding the train will be an untoward incident. Victim will be entitled to compensation and wont fall under section124A merely on plea of negligence as contributory factor. In, Anuradha V. UOI held that “Even the deceased boarded in a wrong train having a valid journey ticket and died while alighting the train that does not mean that he was not a bona fide passenger and on that ground claim cannot be rejected”.

Contentions of the respondent:

The counsel of respondents contended that it’s a clear case of attempt to deboard from running train when it was noticed that they boarded the wrong train for which they relied on Kerala court decision on Joseph P.T. V. UOI AIR 2014, Kerala. Held that passenger moving from a boarded train off side is amounting to carelessness and would be self-inflicting and cannot claim compensation.

Legal provisions:

Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987- A person seeking any relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) 8 [or sub-section (1A)] of section 13 may make an application to the Claims Tribunal.

Section 124A of Indian Railway Act, 1989- Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 pertains to compensation for untoward incidents.

Issue:

Whether the fall amounts to accidental fall within the purview of section of 123 of the Indian Railways Act?

Court analysis and judgement:

Its clear that from section 124 of the act has no compensation if passenger dies or suffers from injuries due to suicide, self- inflicted harm or due to insanity. The court considered that principles laid down in Jameela V UOI, that the deceased dead is not criminal and railway cannot claim compensation. The court has relied on apex court on UOI V. Prabhakaran held that strict liability can hold railways for compensation due to his own fault. The court goes ahead and states that strict liability is also to be considered. Principles laid down in Rine devi and Anuradha’s case is also applicable to the present case. In view of the aforesaid appeal the miscellaneous appeal was allowed and the order of railway tribunal is set aside by compensating an amount of 4,00,000 with 7% interest from date of filing. The tribunal committed in envoking section 124 of Indian Railways Act by concluding that it’s a self -inflicted injury and reasoning of tribunal is erroreneous and judgements referred above by appellants comes to their aid. The court says that if the compensation is less than 8,00,000 it will be compensated compeletly.

“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”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V

Click here to read the judgement