Bombay High Court: The present appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgement dated 24-07-2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim application of appellants. A Single Judge Bench of Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J., opined that an “untoward incident” as defined by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (‘Railways Act’) was established as it had been established that there was an accidental falling down of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. The Court thus directed respondent to pay compensation of Rs 4 lakhs to each of appellants-father and mother of the deceased who died due to accidentally falling down from a train at Sandhurst Road.
Background
On 08-05-2010, appellants’ son left home in the morning for his work and while travelling, he fell from the train due to the crowd of passengers pushing each other and as a result of which, he got seriously injured and became unconscious. Thereafter which, some passengers moved him to J.J. Hospital, where he was admitted in the emergency ward, and while taking treatment, he died around 3.30 p.m. on the same day.
The Tribunal stated that falling down of appellants’ son-deceased from the train was not established, and, therefore, it concluded that their son did not die due to an untoward incident as required by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, only on the ground that the Station Authorities were not informed about the incident. The Tribunal held that it was not believable that the policeman was not taken in the taxi in which the deceased was taken to the hospital.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the Tribunal while concluding ignored the relevant material on record, that is, the Injury Report dated 08-05-2010 which was submitted by the Police Constable, who at the time of the accident, was on duty. The Police Constable stated in the Injury Report that one person sustained injuries, and the passengers took him in a taxi to J.J. Hospital.
The Court noted that the Inquest Panchanama dated 08-05-2010 clearly states that the deceased fell from the train and was found injured and that the passengers admitted him to J.J. Hospital. The Court stated that the Inquest Panchanama described the injuries in the same manner as described by the Police Constable in his Injury Report and the Inquest Panchanama stated that when the panchanama was going on, Appellant 1 personally came and informed that the deceased was his son.
The Court also took note of the Death Certificate, in which the cause of the death was stated as “Haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries (UNNATURAL)” and thus it opined that the given cause was consistent with the deceased falling down from the train. Similarly, the Postmortem Report described the wounds and injuries in a manner that was consistent with the falling down from a train of appellant’s son.
The Court also referred to the Order of the Special Executive Magistrate, which stated that the deceased, had fallen down from an unknown train and had died. The Court opined that all the evidence when taken together, clearly showed that the deceased died due to accidentally falling down from a train at Sandhurst Road.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no ticket was recovered from him and that the ticket details of the deceased had not been given. The Court opined that appellants clearly discharged the initial burden to show that the deceased was carrying a valid monthly pass and was a bonafide passenger and that the pass must have been lost in the untoward incident. Thus, the Court held that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal, that it was not established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, was erroneous and would have to be overturned.
The Court opined that an “untoward incident” as defined by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act was established as it had been established that there was an accidental falling down of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. The Court further opined that the Ration Card clearly showed that Appellants 1 and 2 were parents of the deceased and were dependants as defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act as the deceased was unmarried.
The Court allowed the appeal, quashed, and set aside the impugned judgement dated 24-07-2014 and directed respondent to pay compensation of Rs 4 lakhs to each of appellants.
[Basir v. Union of India, First Appeal No. 779 of 2018, decided on 08-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Kunal Bhanage with Akshay Pawar and Priyanka Acharya, for the Appellants.
For the Respondent: T. J. Pandian with Noorjahan Khan and Gautam Modanwalm, for Respondent.