Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.41 seconds)Section 23 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
The Railways Act, 1989
Section 16 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
Kamukayi vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2023
(viii) The appellant further cites Kamukayi v. Union of India4, to assert that
tribunal findings based solely on post-facto DRM reports, ignoring
medical and GRPS investigation records, are perverse and
unsustainable.
Union Of India vs Rina Devi on 9 May, 2018
23. In the present case, the appellant's case is that he had a valid ticket
which was lost in the mishap along with his baggage. He has
explained the loss. He has also relied upon contemporaneous medical
and police records which support a train related accident. In such
circumstances, the mere fact that the ticket was not produced is not
Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54
determinative. On the principles in Rina Devi (Supra), the appellant's
explanation and supporting material are sufficient to raise a prima
facie inference of bona fide travel, which the Railways must then
rebut.
Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008
In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar
(Supra) the Supreme Court held that the falling of a passenger while
boarding a moving train should be covered by Section 123(c)(2) in a
broad, purposive manner. The Court emphasized that the provision
for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation and should receive a liberal and wider interpretation rather
than a narrow, technical one. These principles control the outcome
here: once it is established that the appellant was a bona fide
passenger and that his injuries arose from an accidental fall from a
train, the Railways' liability is absolute unless an exception in the
proviso is specifically proved, which is not the case on the facts.
Jameela & Ors vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2010
17. As the Supreme Court has held in the case of Jameela (Supra) even if
a passenger falls due to his own negligence (for example, standing
near an open door), this does not affect the Railways' liability under
Section 124A. The proviso's reference to a "criminal act" contemplates
intentional misconduct with mens rea, and simple negligence or
rashness does not qualify. The Court even explicitly held that even if it
were assumed that the deceased fell from the train due to his own
negligence, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable
under section 124A. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
1