Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is at the instance of the original claimants and is directed against judgment and order dated 31.08.2017 passed C/FA/4112/2017 JUDGMENT by the Railway Claims Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the appellants herein under Section 16 of the Act, 1987, read with Sections 124A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1987 for compensation of Rs.4 lac with interest.

2. The appellants herein are the parents of deceased Aakash Mahendrabhai Parmar. Aakash was travelling on 17-09- 2013 from Vadodara to Boriyavi railway station by train No. 59049 Valsad- Viramgam Passenger. He fell down from a running train near the Bajwa Railway Station due to sudden jerk and jolt. According to the appellants, their son was travelling with a valid season pass No. W 65141118. The same was admitted in evidence at Ex- A/10. The Tribunal while adjudicating the application filed by the appellants herein framed the following issues:

Moreover, the applicants in its, claim application as well as in the affidavit of applicant no.1, the deceased was holding a valid MST from Kanjari Boriyavi to Vadodara but the deceased fell down while boarding from Bajwa railway station. Normally tickets as well as MSTs are issued from one station to another station which is valid for a C/FA/4112/2017 JUDGMENT journey in permitted train between the pair of stations without break unless there is an endorsement on the ticket/MST with effect that valid between "A" & "B" stations from anywhere to anywhere. As claimed he was travelling from Vadodara to Kanjari Boriyavi, he is held as a valid passenger. It is presumed that he got down at Bajwa station from the train and again tried to catch the train. Even if it is assumed that he was a bonafide passenger the incident is not an accidental falling from the train and case does not fall u/s. 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. On the contrary the said incident falls under proviso (b) of Section 124A of the Railways Act viz self-inflicted injury. Therefore, on the basis of above discussion is held that the incident does not falls within the definition of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act 1989. It transpires from the above discussion that the applicants have not come out with clean hands before the Tribunal. There is total variance with the pleadings as well as evidence produced on record. Therefore, on the basis of the above facts on record, it is held that the present petitioners fail to C/FA/4112/2017 JUDGMENT establish issue no.2 accordingly I decide issue No.2 in negative. Issue no.1 is decided in affirmative.

9. Answering the points framed for determination should not be difficult as I can do no better than refer to and relied upon a very recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi AIR 2018 SC 2362. The Supreme Court while discussing the Application of Principle of Strict Liability - Concept of Self Inflicted Injury held as under:

"16.1 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 18 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 C/FA/4112/2017 JUDGMENT has been reiterated in Jameela (supra).

"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 C/FA/4112/2017 JUDGMENT 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 footboard of the train. It is common knowledge that the footboard and handrails at the doors of the compartment are 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 footboard hanging beneath the bogie. The probability of danger is increased in arithmetic progression when the train is moving. Visualising 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 C/FA/4112/2017 JUDGMENT provide a speedy remedy to an injured passenger or to the dependants of a deceased passenger involved in an untoward incident. Section 124A of the Act provides for compensation to a passenger or his dependants 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 entrain 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 C/FA/4112/2017 JUDGMENT 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 imminent possibility of dangering his life or limb and therefore, it squarely comes within the term "self-inflicted injury" defined in Section 124A Proviso (b) of the Act."