Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Chauhan Sonal Himanshu on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1225 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1225 of 2025
======================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
CHAUHAN SONAL HIMANSHU
======================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 24/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant - Union.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunals Act, 1987 challenging the judgment and award dated 31st December, 2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, whereby the claim petition preferred by the present respondent - original claimant under Section 16 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124(A), 125 and 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 came to be partly allowed. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- to the respondent to be realized from the appellant railway. The Tribunal has also Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the incident i.e. 27th May, 2024 till the date of the impugned award. The Tribunal has further directed that in case if the appellant railway fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days from the date of the award, then the awarded sum shall carry further simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident till the date of realization.
3. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant - Union has assailed the judgment and award by inviting my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while deciding the issue as to whether the injured meet with an untoward incident due to fall from the running train and therefore would fall in the category of 'untoward incident' as provided in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
3.1 It is submitted that the respondent had admittedly fall from the running train while boarding the train. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the CCTV footage, which was produced by the Railway, had noticed that false pleadings were made in the original application by blending the facts in order to establish the case within the ambit of definition of 'untoward incident'. Whereas, on appreciation of CCTV footage, it had transpired that the applicant went to fetch the water and in a hurry tried to board the running train and in process fell down, which resulted into the incident. Though the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that there was some negligence on the part of the original applicant, however by assailing the superficial reason that she did not intend to lose her leg in her Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined prime youth has arrived at a conclusion that the case would not fall within the ambit of proviso to Section 124(A) and has held that the incident can be treated as untoward incident as provided under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
3.2 Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant vehemently objected to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal has ignored the vital document, more particularly the DRM Report, wherein it has clearly transpired that it was a case of self inflicted injury and not a case of untoward incident as concluded by the Tribunal. He has therefore, submitted that perverse conclusion has been drawn by the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim application.
4. I have heard learned advocate for the appellant - Union and have also perused the impugned judgment and award assailed in the present appeal in light of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant - Union.
5. Looking to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant, the only question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the manner in which the incident is reported would fall within the ambit of proviso to Section 124(A) of the Railway Act or can be treated as 'untoward incident' in terms of the meaning provided under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989?
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined vs. Rina Devi was called upon to clarify at the instance of the Railway Claims Tribunal essentially on four subjects which repeatedly arises before the Railway Claims Tribunal; namely,
(i) Quantum of Compensation (ii) Definition of passenger (iii) The concept of self inflicted injury, and (iv) Amount of interest. While addressing the issue of compensation for injuries sustained during the process of boarding or de- boarding a train, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly analysed as to whether such incident would fall in the category of 'untoward injuries' as defined under Section 123(c)(2) or 'self inflicted injuries' as provided under 124A proviso. The Court held as under:-
"Re: (ii) Application of principle of strict liability - Concept of self-inflicted injury
20. From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. Sections 124 and Section 124A provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an 'untoward incident'. Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to Section 124A. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) it was held that Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where principle of strict liability applies, proof of negligence is not required. This principle has been reiterated in Jameela.
21. Coming to the proviso to Section 124A to the effect that no compensation is payable if passenger dies or suffers injury due to the situations mentioned therein, there is no difficulty as regards suicide or attempted suicide in which case no compensation may be payable. Conflict of opinions in High Courts has arisen on understanding the expression 'self inflicted injury' in the proviso. In some decisions it has been Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined held that injury or death because of negligence of the victim was at par with self inflicted injury. We may refer to the decisions of High Courts of Kerala in Joseph PT (supra), Bombay in Pushpa (supra) and Delhi in Shyam Narayan (supra) on this point.
22. In Joseph PT (supra), the victim received injuries in the course of entering a train which started moving. Question was whether his claim that he had suffered injuries in an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) could be upheld or whether he was covered by proviso to Section 124A clause (b). The High Court held that while in the case of suicide or attempt to commit suicide, intentional act is essential. Since the concept of 'self inflicted injury' is distinct from an attempted suicide, such intention is not required and even without such intention if a person acts negligently, injuries suffered in such an accident will amount to 'self inflicted injury'. Relevant observations are :
"24. Therefore, the two limbs of the Proviso should be construed to have two different objectives to be achieved. We can understand the meaning of the term "self-inflicted injury" not only from the sources provided by the dictionaries, but also from the context in which it is used in the statute. The term "self-inflicted injury" used in the statute can be deduced as one which a person suffers on account of one's own action, which is something more than a rash or negligent act But it shall not be an intentional act of attempted suicide. While there may be cases where there is intention to inflict oneself with injury amounting to self-inflicted injury, which falls short of an attempt to commit suicide, there can also be cases where, irrespective of intention, a person may act with total recklessness, in that, he may throw all norms of caution to the wind and regardless to his age, circumstances, etc. act to his detriment. Facts of this case show that the appellant attempted to board a moving train from the off side unmindful of his age and fully aware of the positional disadvantageous and dangers of boarding a train from a level lower than the foot board of the train. It is common knowledge that the foot board and handrails at the doors of the compartment are Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined designed to suit the convenience of the passengers for boarding from and alighting to the platform. And at the same time, when a person is trying to board the train from the non- platform side, he will be standing on the heap of rubbles kept beneath the track and that too in a lower level. Further more, he will have to stretch himself to catch the handrails and struggle to climb up through the foot board hanging beneath the bogie. The probability of danger is increased in arithmetic progression when the train is moving. Visualizing all these things in mind, it can only be held that the act of the appellant was the height of carelessness, imprudence and foolhardiness. It is indisputable that the purpose of Section 124A of the Act is to provide a speedy remedy to an injured passenger or to the dependents of a deceased passenger involved in an untoward incident. Section 124A of the Act provides for compensation to a passenger or his dependents who suffers injury or death, as the case may be, in an untoward incident even where the untoward incident is not the consequence of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. To this extent, it can be said to be a no-fault liability. Even though the provisions relating to payment of compensation in the Act can be said to be a piece of beneficial legislation, it cannot be stretched too much to reward a person who acts callously, unwisely or imprudently. There is no provision of law brought to our notice permitting the passengers to enter in from the non-platform side of the railway track. However, the counsel for the respondent did not show any provision of law prohibiting the same. The question whether an act by which a passenger sustains injury while boarding a train through the off side, is a self- inflicted injury or not depends on the facts of each case. Merely because a person suffered injury in the process of getting into the train through the off side, it may not be sufficient to term it as a self- inflicted injury, unless the facts and circumstances show that his act was totally imprudent, irrational, callous and unmindful of the consequences. All the facts and circumstances established in this case would show that the act of the appellant was with full knowledge of the Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined imminent possibility of endangering his life or limb and therefore, it squarely comes within the term "self-inflicted injury" defined in Section 124A Proviso (b) of the Act." (emphasis supplied)
23. In Pushpa (supra) a hawker died in the course of boarding a train. It was held that he was not entitled to compensation as it was a case of 'self inflicted injury'. The relevant observations are :
"14. Such an attempt by a hawker has been viewed by the trial Court as something amounting to criminal negligence on his part and also an effort to inflict injuries to himself. The trial Court reasoned that if the deceased had to sell his goods by boarding a train, he should have ensured to do so only when it was quite safe for him to get on to the train or otherwise he could have avoided catching the train and waited for another train to come. It also hinted that there was absolutely no compulsion or hurry for the deceased in the present case to make an attempt to somehow or the other board the train while it was gathering speed."
24. In Shyam Narayan (supra), same view was taken which is as follows:
"7. I cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellants/applicants in the facts of the present case because there is a difference between an untoward incident and an act of criminal negligence. Whereas negligence will not dis-entitle grant of compensation under the Railways Act, however, once the negligence becomes a criminal negligence and self-inflicted injury then compensation cannot be granted. This is specifically provided in the first proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act which provides that compensation will not be payable in case the death takes place on account of suicide or attempted suicide, self inflicted injury, bona fide passenger's own criminal act or an act committed by the deceased in the state of intoxication or insanity."Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined
25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of 'self inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar 34 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault theory' under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the compensation and will 34 2017 (13) SCALE 652 not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.
In view of the aforesaid decision, the death or injury in the course of boarding a train will be a case of 'untoward incident' and not a case of 'self inflicted injury' as appears under proviso appended to Section 124A of the 1989 Act, as in order to attract the aforesaid proviso the element of intention to inflict such injury has to be established and not mere negligence. Upon close reading of the relevant observations, the Court has gone a step ahead by observing that the defence of negligence is not available when the liability is based on 'No fault' theory.
7. Applying the aforesaid legal principles in the facts of the case, it is an undisputed fact that the original applicant was a bonafide passenger and admittedly the incident as transpired on record while considering the CCTV footage is that the applicant had went to fetch water and hurriedly she tried to board the running train and in the process she fell down, Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined which ultimately resulted into the incident. The Tribunal has considered the aforesaid evidence to arrive at a conclusion that there was some negligence on the part of the applicant. However, has further noticed that the element of criminal negligence has not been established by the Railway so as to consider a case of self inflicted injuries or a criminal act to fall within the purview of proviso to Section 124(A) of the Railway Act. In the opinion of this Court, considering the plain language of the proviso appended to Section 124(A) of the Railway Act, 1989 provides that when in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration once a passenger receives any injury then, they are entitled to compensation except in case if the passenger sustained injury due to suicide or attempted suicide, self inflicted injury or criminal act or any act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity or any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
8. Looking to the admitted facts and in a manner in which the incident has been reported, in my opinion, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal to treat it as a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act, which clearly covers the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. As regards the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant - Union that looking to the manner in which the incident has been Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined reported, it can be considered as a case of self inflicted injury, as rightly noticed by the Tribunal no person would like to cause self injuries to the extent of putting one's life in danger. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rina Devi (supra), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent sustained injuries due to accidental fall and was therefore entitled to claim compensation.
9. For the reasons assigned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal. The appeal therefore, fails and is summarily rejected.
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...
Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:20:23 IST 2025