Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa @ Chandru vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16277
MFA No. 2801 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2801 OF 2014 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRU,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H.No.12-6-284,
LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR - 584 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.J.SANGHVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
RAILWAY NILAYAM,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 371.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally (BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H., DSGI)
signed by
RAMYA D
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Location: ACT, 1987, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2013 PASSED IN
HIGH
COURT OF OA II U 138/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION
FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
ACT,1987, R/W SECTION 124-A OF RAILWAYS ACT, 1989.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16277
MFA No. 2801 of 2014
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the applicant challenging the judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in OA II U 138/2011, thereby, application filed by the applicant seeking compensation is dismissed. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is the case of applicant that on 25.08.2009 the applicant went to the Railway Station, Raichur to go to Gulbarga by Chennai-Mumbai Mail Train after purchasing the general ticket to travel in the said train. While he was waiting on the platform and after arrival of the train, he boarded the same in general coach which was crowded and during the course of journey, the applicant accidentally fell down from the said train and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to the Government Hospital, Raichur, for treatment by Railway Police, Raichur.
He was inpatient from 25.08.2009 to 27.10.2009 and due to said untoward incident he has become a paraplegia -3- NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 patient for having sustained injuries in the untoward incident. By claiming that injuries sustained is not self inflicted injuries and therefore, being a bonafide passenger, he had sustained injuries in a railway accident, applicant filed an application seeking compensation. But the Tribunal has dismissed the application on the reason that injuries sustained by the claimant is self inflicted injuries and not a bonafide passenger.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that the applicant was a bonafide passenger since he has travelled after purchasing the ticket and boarded in the general coach, which was heavily crowded constraining the applicant to travel in such crowded coach and as a result, he fell from the coach and sustained injuries. Therefore, submitted that since the applicant has purchased ticket he is a bonafide passenger and he has sustained injuries in an untoward incident. The injuries sustained by the applicant are not self inflicted injuries, but in this regard, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 evidence on record correctly resulting into erroneous judgment of dismissal being passed. Further submitted that due to the accident, the applicant is suffering from paraplegia. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and grant compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India appearing on behalf of Railway Department submitted that applicant was not a bonafide passenger as he had not purchased the ticket. Further submitted that applicant was travelling on the footboard of the door and as such, the injuries sustained by the applicant are self inflicted injuries. Therefore, justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Upon hearing the submissions made by both the counsel, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014
(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant/applicant proves that he was a bonafide passenger?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant/applicant proves that he has sustained injuries due to an untoward incident?
(iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the respondent proves that injuries sustained are self inflicted injuries and applicant was not a bonafide passenger?
(iv) Under the facts and circumstances, if the application is allowed what compensation amount is entitled by the claimant?
(v) What order?
6. All the above points are taken up together for common consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts and law as they are interlinked to each other. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014
7. It is the case made out by the claimant that on 25.08.2009 he was travelling in Chennai-Mumbai Mail Train from Raichur to Gulbarga after purchasing ticket and the said train was over crowded. Therefore, during the course of journey, the claimant accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries and thus, filed the claim petition for claiming compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application. The Tribunal has assigned the reason that the claimant has not produced the journey ticket, therefore, arrived at a conclusion that the claimant was not a bonafide passenger. Further in DRM report, there is no signature of the Manager and the date of message given by Station Master/Raichur to SI/GRP/Raichur and SI/RPF/Raichur the date of accident is mentioned as 20.08.2009, whereas the incident had occurred on 25.08.2009. Therefore, as there is discrepancy in mentioning the date, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Further assigned the reason that there is no eye witness to the incident. The claimant has not examined any eye witness and also not examined -7- NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 anybody who had accompanied the injured to the railway station and have not seen purchasing of journey ticket.
8. Further assigned the reason that Form No.1 and 2 enclosed with DRM's report do not contain signature of the concerned authority or any date and place of untoward incident. Further assigned the reason that the Station Master at Raichur has stated that the claimant was lying at KM.No.565/7-8 between Raichur and Yermarus and near over bridge No.1071. But in para 6-b of the petition, the claimant has not mentioned the location where he fell and sustained injuries and also the Inspector/RPF/Raichur's report referred in DRM's report is unsigned. Therefore, on all these reasons, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal on trivial reasons has dismissed the claim petition, which is not in accordance with law. The Tribunal without considering the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 scope and ambit of the statutes in this regard and dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions has erroneously dismissed the claim petition. He argued with reference to various provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 along with the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short "Rules, 2003"). Therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India justified the dismissal of the claim petition.
11. Section 124A of Railways Act stipulates regarding compensation on account of untoward incident, which reads as under:
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 "124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident-
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 such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only of loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "passenger" includes--
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]"
12. Section 124A is formulated on "No Fault Liability". It 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 such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed is entitled for compensation. This Court in the case of Sri Mahaboob Sab and Smt. Mahaboob Jaan Vs. Union of India
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (UOI) South Western Railways1, wherein at paragraph No.17 it is held as under:
"17. The fact that Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation cannot be lost sight of by this Court and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and purposeful construction of an enactment is one which gives effect of legislative intent. Particularly when such beneficial legislation is called in question, it should receive a liberal interpretation and applying a strained interpretation would defeat the legislative purpose for which enactment is brought about."
13. During the course of cross-examination, the claimant has admitted that he has not produced the journey ticket to the Tribunal. For this, it is the explanation offered by the claimant that he lost ticket in the said accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the hospital, in that process, he lost ticket. Therefore, in this regard, upon considering the evidence of 1 (2010) 4 KCCR 2536
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 the claimant and respondent, just because, the claimant has not produced the journey ticket, it cannot be said that he is not the bonafide passenger. When the accident occurs, the most important step to be taken immediately is to take medical treatment rushing to the hospital rather than giving attention to preserve tickets. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be expected from the claimant to prompt preservation of the journey ticket after accident occurs. It is the responsibility of the railways to produce the Daily Ticket Collection Register to prove that as to how many passengers have purchased the ticket and how many passengers actually travelled in the train. The railways are maintaining Daily Ticket Collection Register.
14. It is the case of the claimant that the train was over crowded. Though, the railway has issued ticket, therefore, under these circumstances, when an untoward incident occurs and found that the claimant has sustained injuries on the track, it is an accident towards occurring of untoward incident. It is worthwhile to refer paragraph
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 No.18 in the case of Sri Mahaboob Sab (stated supra), which reads as under:
"18. Mr. Raghupathy learned Counsel appearing for respondents would contend that initial burden by claimants have not been discharged to demonstrate that deceased was travelling as a valid passenger by holding a valid ticket. Though this argument looks attractive, it cannot be accepted for simple and obvious reason that in a situation where a person who falls from train and suffers multiple injuries and is shifted to an hospital on an emergent basis cannot be expected to retain the ticket, which he would have purchased and to further expect the claimants who are none other than parents of deceased to establish this fact that in fact deceased had purchased the ticket. On the other hand it is necessary to observe at this juncture that a person who is travelling in a train is deemed to have been purchased the ticket and is travelling as a valid passenger until and unless it is rebutted by respondent to show otherwise. In the absence of this fact, this Court cannot accept the arguments of learned counsel appearing for respondent. In view of the above finding, order of Tribunal on issue Nos.1 and 2 is liable
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Rules 6 to 13 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, stipulates as follows:
"6. Duties of Station Superintendent-The Station Superintendent, on receipt of an information about the occurrence of an untoward incident under rule 3, shall,-
(i) make necessary entries to
this effect in the station
diary;
(ii) arrange for medical
assistance to the injured
passengers;
(iii) make out a brief report in respect of spot of the untoward incident and forward copies thereof to the Divisional Office, Zonal Railways, police and [Divisional Security Commissioner] of the Force.
2[***]
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014
7. Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Force-
(1) On receipt of information under Rule 6, an officer of the Force, [***] shall carry out the investigation and shall,-
(i) obtain copies of the inquest report, post mortem report and Jama Talashi report from the police investigating the incident
(ii) obtain a copy of the report specified under clause
(iii) obtain information about the untoward incident in Form-2;
(iv) record statement of
additional witnesses, if so
required
(v) collect any other evidence
required by the
circumstances of the case.
(2) The officer of the Force,
[shall complete the investigation within sixty days and] submit a report to the [authority] specified under sub-rule (2) of rule 10.
8. Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Police-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (1) The police on receipt of the report under clause (iii) of rule 6, shall immediately initiate investigation and prepare inquest report or injury report in accordance with the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(2) After preparation of report, as mentioned in sub-rule (1), the police shall immediately give clearance certificate for movement of trains from the site of incident so that minimum delay is caused in restoration of train movement.
9. The injured and the next of kin of the deceased passenger may submit evidence and assist police and Force- The injured and the next of kin of the deceased passengers may submit all the relevant evidence before the Police and assist the Police and the Force to complete the investigation.
10. Forwarding of investigation report by the Police and the Force-
(1) The police on completion of the investigation, shall forward the report thereof to the Magistrate, as required under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (2) The officer of the Force shall forward the report prepared under sub-rule (2) of rule 7 to the [***] Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force.
(3) The Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the report to Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of report of investigation from officer of the force.
11. Action on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager-
(1) The Divisional Railway Manager, on receipt of the report, [mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 10 shall examine the same within fifteen days.
(2) When, on examination, Divisional Railway Manager is satisfied that the investigation is complete, he shall pass an order accepting the said report.
(3) If the Divisional Railway Manager has reason to believe that some more inquiry is required in the matter, it shall refer the same back for investigation to the officer of the Force along with his observations for further investigation.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (4) On receipt of a reference under sub-rule (3), the officer of the Force shall investigate the matter further and submit the report immediately to the Divisional Railway Manager.
12. Communication of order -
Final orders passed on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent who shall maintain the records and make necessary entries in the Station Diary to this effect.
13. Sending report to Claim Office-
(1) The investigation report along with acceptance of Divisional Railway Manager thereon shall be sent within
fifteen days to the administrative in-charge of the claim office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred.
(2) The administrative in-charge of claim office of the Zonal Railway who has received the notice of claim for that particular incident shall arrange to collect the report from the claim office of Railway where the incident has occurred and submit the same to the concerned bench of the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 Railway Claims Tribunal along with the Written Statement.]"
16. Clause (c) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "untoward incident" as under:
"Clause (c) of Section 123 - "untoward incident" means--
(1) (i)the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity;
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station;
or"
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014
17. Sub-Section (2) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:
"Sub-section (2) of Section 123 - the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
18. Clause (a) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "accident" as, an accident of the nature described in Section 124.
19. Section 124 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "Extent of liability", which reads as under:
"124. Extent of liability- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall,
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section "passenger" includes a railway servant on duty."
20. Therefore, upon reading of Sections 123, 124 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, it is based on "No Fault Liability" on the part of the passenger. Whether or not there is any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or suffered loss or killed in the accident, then the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to the passengers who suffered injuries or death occurred in such an untoward incident.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014
21. It is not possible for the claimant to examine a person as he has witnessed that the claimant has purchased tickets and also it is not possible for the claimant to examine a person as eye witness to the incident. If any passenger accompanied his friend or relative, then it may be possible to examine that person as eye witness. But whereas a passenger travels alone along with other stranger passenger, then after the incident and when the claim petition is filed before the Tribunal, it is not possible for the claimant to examine other passenger as witness to the incident. It is not expected in this regard that the claimant to examine any person as eye witness. Expectation by the railway administration that the claimant should examine eye witness is ridicule on the part of the railway administration and it is wholly unwarranted. What the Railway Department prepares report by the Divisional Railway Manager as stated above certain duties are prescribed on the railway authorities as per Rules 6 to 13 of Rules, 2003 (stated supra) to follow the same as
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 they are mandatory duties on part of railway authorities at various levels.
22. Rules 6 to 13 as above stated impose bounden duty on the officials of railway authorities to perform their duties and discharge their functions when an untoward incident occurs. Therefore, what the railway authorities could do and ought to perform their functions, it cannot be expected from the claimant's side. The claimant has already suffered injuries. Therefore, it is not a rivers burden on the claimant to prove each and every minute aspect of the accident. But the Tribunal has committed error by expecting evidence of eye witness from the claimant, which the railway authorities ought to do. Therefore, the observations of the Tribunal that, just because, the signature is not found in the report, hence, suspecting the claim petition wholly is not correct.
23. When the respondent-Railway has taken the contention that the claimant has not produced the railway
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 ticket, but certain duties are cast on the Railway as per Rule 4 of Rules, 2003 (stated supra).
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others2, wherein at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 held as under:
"9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of provisions of the Railways Act, in particular Chapter XIII which deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123 (c) defines "untoward incident". As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident. As per Section 124A, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. When in the course of working of 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 as such, would entitle a passenger who has been injured or died. The claim can be maintained to recover the damages, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law the Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed 2 (2023) 6 SCR 329
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 for such untoward incident. By the explanation of the said Section clarifying about 'passenger', it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v.
Union of India,2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India,(2019)12 SCC 391 and in para 29 concluded as thus-
"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani Devi Vs. Union of India3 at paragraph No.13 held as under:
"13. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on a judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Rani Devi v. Union of India reported in 2018 ACJ 2681 wherein it is held that:
Railways Act, 1989, Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A-Untoward incident -- Negligence of victim -- Passenger fell down while boarding train at platform and sustained fatal injuries -- Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the grounds that deceased was not a bona fide passenger as ticket was not recovered from him but was later produced by claimant and the 3 2017 SCC Online Del 10274
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 train in question departed before the occurrence of the incident Section 124-A is based on the principle of no fault liability and compensation cannot be denied on the ground that deceased was negligent and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault -- Body of the deceased was found on the tracks near platform which proves the accident resulting in the death of deceased -- Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident and Railways is liable"
26. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi4 it is held that mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative to claim that he was a bonafide passenger. At paragraph No.17.4 in the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the above legal position in this regard, which is extracted at paragraph No.17.4 as follows:
"17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim 4 (2019) 3 SCC 572
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
27. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that liability of the Railway is a strict liability as per the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 123 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, it is specifically provided that compensation has to be granted on account of an untoward incident, even if there is negligence on the part of bonafide passenger. In this regard, I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 and Others5 and Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI)6. It is held that even if the bonafide passenger is guilty of negligence, compensation has to be granted in this regard. The only way the railway can avoid the liability is to prove that the negligence is not an ordinary negligence, but it is a case of criminal negligence or a case of suicide or self inflicted injury.
28. It is the duty cast on the railway authorities as per the Rules, 2003, mandating the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Therefore, it is the duty cast on the railway authorities to produce the result of investigation as provided under the Rules, 2003 to produce before the Tribunal, and it could not be expected from the claimants to produce the details of accident. The Rules, 2003, imposes various mandatory duties on the railway authorities which the Station Superintendent, Guard, Conductor and Train Ticket Examiner in-charge of the train and forward report to the 5 (2008) 9 SCC 527 6 (2010) 12 SCC 443
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 Magistrate as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Divisional Security Commissioner of force and then in turn, the Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the report to the Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days and then the Divisional Railway Manager shall submit a report as to on what action he has taken and same shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent who shall maintain the records and make necessary entries in the station diary. The said report shall be sent within fifteen days to the administrative in-charge of the Claim Office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred. Therefore, in this regard, various duties are imposed at the various levels of officers of railway authorities as provided under the Rules, 2003, as above stated. Therefore, it is not proper on the Railway Authorities to put entire burden on the claimant to prove the untoward incident.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014
29. The accident due to railways and accident due to motor vehicle are two different aspects, which has to be considered under two different statutes. There is restriction to enter the railway premises including the railway station and generally the public are not allowed unless having valid ticket or platform ticket. The passengers can travel after purchasing journey ticket. In case, the claimants being legal representatives of the deceased bonafide passenger are far away from the places and they could not know what is happening in the railway premises/track, therefore, it cannot be expected the details of untoward incident from the claimant and also the claimant being bonafide passenger is not expected to give minor details regarding untoward incident. Therefore, in this background, the statutory mandatory provisions are made against various levels of officers of the railway authorities to conduct investigation as per Rules, 2003 and submit the report. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs. General Manager, South-
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 East Central Railways7 wherein at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 held as follows:
"4. Though Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") mandates the Railway Authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before RCT on 27-2-2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23-4-2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de- trained from the moving train at D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railways was accepted by RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal i.e. FAO No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned 7 (2019) 12 SCC 387
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference.
5. It is in these circumstances, the appellants are before us in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs.4 lakhs."
30. The provisions under the railway statutes as above discussed insofar as awarding compensation on the
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 provisions used such as bonafide passenger, untoward incident, self inflicted injury are to be liberally construed and interpreted. The provisions under the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and its allied Rules, where compensation is to be granted towards untoward incident are made as a beneficial or welfare statute. The beneficial or welfare statute should be construed liberally and interpreted in its true spirit, but not by adopting rigid and strict interpretation. Therefore, the object should be given to substantial justice to the victims of Railway accident, but not by approaching technicalities. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar's case wherein at paragraph No.12 it is held as under:
"12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen , Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Others, Lalappa Lingappa and Others Vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., S.M. Nilajkar and others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, etc.,"
31. Therefore, applying the principles of law as discussed above as per statute and as per authoritative judicial pronouncement as above discussed, in the present case, the claimant while he was giving evidence has stated that on 25.08.2009 he went to railway station, Raichur, with a view to go to Gulbarga by Chennai-Mumbai Mail Train and purchased journey ticket from Raichur to Gulbarga and sustained injuries in the railway accident. Nothing is revealed during the course of cross-examination that his evidence is false.
32. Ex.A1 is the MLC report issued by the District Hospital, Raichur to Police Sub-Inspector, Raichur, wherein the doctor has mentioned that the injured has taken
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 treatment on 25.08.2009 as inpatient in connection with the railway accident. Ex.A2 is the discharge summary issued by the Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences, wherein it is stated that the alleged history of railway track accident injuries to both the feet. Ex.A3 is the discharge card issued by RIMS Teaching Hospital, Raichur, which also mentions the history of Railway accident by mentioning the name of the claimant. Ex.A4 is the photographs showing the nature of injury sustained by the injured.
33. Further the DRM report-Ex.R1 proves the fact that the injured had tried to board the train at Raichur Railway Station while it was in motion. Hence, fallen down and sustained Injuries. Therefore, the DRM report - Ex.R1 proves the fact that while the claimant was boarding the train, the accident has occurred and sustained injuries. Therefore, all the evidence conclusively proved the fact that the claimant had sustained injuries in the railway
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 accident. In this regard, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on flimsy reason that there is discrepancy in mentioning the dates and ticket was not produced and hence, not a bonafide passenger and eye witnesses are not examined, the DRM report do not contain the signatures, therefore, only on this trivial reason, the claim was rejected, which is wholly untenable. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative.
34. From the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant has sustained crushed injuries on right leg thigh and multiple fractures of bones in the foot, dislocation of the IP joint and crush injuries resulting to amputation of all the fingers of the right leg and fracture Malhole of left foot. Therefore, when the claimant has suffered such grievous injuries as above stated, it incapacitates the claimant to do any work amounting to
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 paraplegia. Therefore, as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (the date of accident is 25.08.2009) is awarded along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, point No.4 is answered.
35. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the reasonings given by the Railway Claims Tribunal is grossly incorrect and untenable on the eye of law. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
36. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 29.11.2013 passed in O.A.II U 138/2011 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is set aside.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014
(iii) The claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iv) No order as to costs.
(v) Draw award accordingly.
(vi) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial
Court Records along with copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal forthwith.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74