#railwaycompensation Archives

25 Aug

Bombay High Court declares compensation to the claimants of an “untoward incident” on the Railways

Prime Legal

blog #bombayhighcourt, #railwayaccident, #railwaycompensation

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

10 Jul

Delhi High Court granted compensation and set aside the order of the railway tribunal.

Prime Legal

Blog #compansation, #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt, #highcourtdelhi, #primelegal, #railwaycompensation, #tribunal, #untowardincident, Blog, Prime Legal

Title: RAM PRATAP & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF RAILWAY)

Reserved on: 15.03.2023

Pronounced on: 05.07.2023

FAO 172/2014

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

Introduction

Delhi High court set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA(IIu)008/2013 and granted compensation to the appellants under section 23 of the railway claims tribunal act 1987.

Facts of the case

The appellants seek to challenge the decision made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA(IIu)008/2013, which dismissed the claim application they submitted. This appeal was filed in accordance with Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

The appellants’ knowledgeable counsel argued that the Tribunal had rejected the appellants’ claim even though the two travel tickets (for the forward and return voyage) had been found on the deceased individual.

In contrast, the respondent’s learned CGSC argued that the Tribunal correctly rejected the assertions that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the event an untoward incident occurred while defending the disputed order.

Analysis of the court

A review of the file would also demonstrate that the tickets were confirmed and discovered to have been issued on June 5, 2012, at 12:18. Even though the trip was started on that day with considerable delay, The appellants claimed in their testimony that after buying the tickets, the deceased went home for some personal matters before returning to travel later that evening. In the deceased should not be denied the status of having been a genuine passenger just because there was a small window of time between the time the tickets were issued and the journey was actually taken, according to this Court’s FAO 172/2014 Page 3 of 4 opinion. In addition, the Tribunal’s assertion that the claim averments are implausible since neither the deceased’s fellow passengers nor the authorities were informed of the occurrence is false and should be rejected given the circumstances of the case.

In light of the foregoing reasoning, this Court believes that the Tribunal erred in denying the appellants’ claim application. As a result, the appeal is granted and the contested ruling is reversed.

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

clcik to view the judgement

8 Jun

COMPENSATION GRANTED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CASE: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Prime Legal

Blog #BOMBAY HIGH COURT, #railwaycompensation, #writpetition

INTRODUCTION:

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 07 June 2023. In the case of SMT. KAMLABAI WD/O MAHADEORAO RAUT Vs UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI CST IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2019 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE MUKULIKA SHRIKANT JAWALKAR, the Appellate Court reviewed and overturned the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in a claim application related to an untoward incident on a passenger train. The case involved the tragic death of an individual who fell from a running train, and the appellant, the mother of the deceased, sought compensation for the loss. This blog post provides an overview of the case, highlights the key arguments and findings that led to the successful appeal, and explores the relevant laws governing railway accident compensation.

FACTS:

On January 28, 2015, the deceased individual was traveling on Amravati-Nagpur Passenger Train No. 51261 from Badnera to Dhamangaon. Due to overcrowding, the deceased fell from the running train near the Pulgaon Railway line, resulting in his untimely death. The appellant, the mother of the deceased, filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for her son’s demise.

TRIBUNAL’S DECISION:

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, stating that the mere finding of the deceased’s body near the track and the recovery of a ticket were insufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The tribunal held that there was a lack of eyewitness testimony and did not consider the circumstantial evidence presented.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS:

The appellant contended that the tribunal erred in dismissing the claim based on the absence of an eyewitness. She asserted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as evidenced by the journey ticket found with the body. Furthermore, she argued that the police documents, the nature of the injuries sustained, and the probable cause of death supported her claim.

APPELLATE COURT’S FINDINGS:

After carefully considering the submissions and reviewing the evidence, the Appellate Court reached several significant conclusions. The court noted that a valid journey ticket from Badnera to Dhamangaon was recovered from the deceased, establishing that he had purchased the ticket shortly before the train’s departure from Badnera. The court also highlighted discrepancies in the station manager’s mention of the time when the body was found, concluding that it was highly improbable for the deceased to have reached Pulgaon before the train’s arrival.

The court emphasized that the possession of a valid ticket implied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and had fallen from the train at Pulgaon. It criticized the tribunal’s failure to appreciate these facts and ruled that the order passed by the tribunal was erroneous and perverse.

Laws Involved: The compensation awarded in railway accident cases is governed by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. These rules provide a framework for determining the compensation amount based on the nature of the incident and the resulting injuries or loss of life.

JUDGMENT AND COMPENSATION AWARD:

In light of the schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs) to the appellant, acknowledging the death of her son, Mahadeorao Raut. The Union of India was directed to deposit the awarded amount into the claimant’s account within three months.

CONCLUSION:

This appellate judgment highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the evidence presented in railway claims cases and considering the relevant laws governing compensation. It emphasizes that circumstantial evidence, such as possession of a valid ticket, can be crucial in establishing the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger. By overturning the initial decision, the Appellate Court ensured that the appellant received the compensation she deserved for the untimely loss of her son, in accordance with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement