Allahabad High Court: In an appeal challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby claim petition filed by the appellants has been rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to prove any negligence on the part of Respondent 3, Manjive Shukla , J. has said that the issue in question is in respect of negligence on the part of Railways and therefore, merely because deceased was in obligation under Section 131 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), to be vigilant, does not absolve the Railways from its liability. The Tribunal while holding that Railways was not negligent, has erred in law and fact both. Thus, while setting aside the impugned order, the Court remanded the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to decide the Claim Petition afresh in the light of the judgment in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 8 SCC 683 and judgment in Union of India v. Nagnath1, expeditiously.
Background:
On 12-01-2014, the deceased was going to attend his official duty at the Sugarcane Purchase Centre and in that process, he crossed a railway-crossing and met with an accident with running train. At the time of accident, deceased was on his motorcycle. Due to injuries suffered out of the aforesaid accident, he ultimately died in hospital.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concluded that Railways was not, at all, negligent in respect of the accident in question and, therefore, claim petition filed by the claimants, is liable to be rejected. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court found that the claim petition filed by the appellants has only been rejected on the ground that deceased himself was negligent and there was no negligence on the part of the Railways regarding the accident in question.
The Court examined Section 131 of the MV Act, and said that if seen at a macro level, there is a responsibility on the driver to be vigilant while passing through unmanned railway crossing and it is obligatory for the driver to stop and to ascertain as to whether any train is passing by, before crossing through unmanned railway crossing. But, at a micro level, the Railways is also under obligation to mitigate the possibility of the accident and minimum requirement on the part of Railways is, at least to put one sign board before the crossing so that public at large may know that this is an unmanned crossing, and may remain vigilant while passing through the railway crossing.
The Court relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), wherein it was held that Railways have got a duty to display cautionary notice board along with road approaching to such railway line and if the sign board has not been put in, then negligence on the part of the Railways is apparent.
The Court said that the issue in question is in respect of negligence on the part of Railways and therefore, merely because deceased was in obligation under Section 131 of the MV Act to be vigilant, does not absolve the Railways from its liability. Thus, the Tribunal while holding that Railways was not negligent, has erred in law and fact both.
Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to decide the Claim Petition afresh.
[Swaraj Singh v Herendra Bahadur Singh, First Appeal from Order No. 293 of 2021, Order dated 20-03-2024]
1. M.F.A. No. 32710 of 2011 (MV)
