Budun Minji & Ors vs Union Of India

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J

In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No.152 of 2017, which dismissed the claim application for compensation arising out of the death alleged to have occurred in an ‘untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 05.04.2016, the deceased Budhu Minj was travelling from Raigrah to Brajarajnagar on the strength of valid journey ticket purchased from Raigarh Railway Station bearing the No. VYA-51990424 by the Gondia-Jharsuguda Passenger Train.

(ii) During the course of the journey the compartment was overcrowded, and due to sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and the push and pull of passengers, the deceased lost his balance, fell from the running train near Lijkura Railway Station, as a result he was succumbed to injuries and died on the spot.

(iii) The appellants, thereafter, instituted Original Application No. 152 of 2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and preferred a claim under Section 124A of the Act, seeking statutory compensation on account of the death of the deceased, allegedly occasioned by an “untoward incident” as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act.

(iv) Upon perusal of the pleadings and evidentiary materials adduced by the parties, the Learned Tribunal was pleased to frame five distinct issues for determination. After an elaborate evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal ultimately returned findings to the effect that the deceased did not qualify as a bona fide passenger nor, could the occurrence be brought within the statutory ambit of an “untoward incident” under the Act. On the premises, the Original Application came to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 01.01.2024 passed in the Original Application No. 152 of 2017 by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, whereby the claim petition was dismissed, the Appellants have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court by preferring the present appeal, assailing the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the impugned order on both factual and jurisdictional grounds.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Appellants contended that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in connection with the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased, is manifestly against the weight of the evidences on record, it is further urged that the impugned judgment suffers from mis-appreciation of the material facts and misapplication of law, rendering the same unsustainable in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order warrants interference and is liable to be set aside.

(ii) The Appellants contended that when several documents issued by the Police clearly establish the death of the deceased occurred on account of the untoward incident that took place in the course of the journey.

(iii) The Appellants further submitted that the final report of the Investing Agency, the Post-Mortem Report, and the Inquest Proceeding unanimously conclude that the death of the deceased was due to the fall from the train. No cogent or contrary evidence has been adduced by the Railways to rebut these findings. It was urged that mere reliance on the DRM report, unsupported by witness testimony or substantive proof, cannot form the sole basis for denying the claim.

(iv) The Learned Tribunal, without duly appreciating or taking judicial cognizance of the attendant factual circumstances borne out from the evidentiary corpus, committed a manifest error in rejecting the claim application on the untenable premise that the death of the deceased fell within the ambit of the statutory exceptions engrafted under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of any “untoward incident” within the contemplation of Section 123(c)(2) thereof. The findings so recorded are contrary to the preponderant weight of evidence, devoid of sound judicial reasoning and inconsistent with the settled principles governing the presumption of liability under the beneficial scheme of the Act. Hence, the impugned judgment is ex facie perverse, legally unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside.

(v) The Tribunal has committed a manifest and patent error in law in concluding that the death of the deceased was suicidal in nature which is based solely on conjecture and surmise, and unsupported by any credible or substantive evidentiary material. Such an inference, rendered in the absence of cogent and reliable proof, is in direct contravention of the settled principles of evidence and runs counter to the statutory presumption of accidental causation envisaged under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

(vi) It is further submitted that the testimony of Appellant No. 2, examined as AW-2, both in chief and under cross-examination, clearly establishes that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The cumulative evidentiary corpus unmistakably leads to an irresistible conclusion that the deceased accidentally fell from a running train during the course of travel, thereby the occurrence squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The contrary findings recorded by the Learned Tribunal, being perverse, contrary to the weight of evidence, and inconsistent with the legislative intent underlying the no-fault liability scheme embodied in Section 124A of the Act, are patently unsustainable in law and warrant interference by this Court.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions:

(i) In cases arising out of “untoward incidents”, the initial evidentiary burden indisputably rests upon the claimant to establish the foundational facts necessary to invoke the statutory presumption of accidental causation of death as envisaged under Section 124A of the Act. In the instant case, the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily discharge this primary onus. The attendant circumstances, when objectively evaluated in light of the evidentiary record, do not support the theory of an accidental fall from a running train; rather, they unmistakably indicate a self-inflicted act culminating into a suicidal run-over. Such a conduct clearly falls within the exceptions expressly carved out under the proviso to Section 124A of the Act, thereby excluding the application of the principle of strict or no-fault liability otherwise attaching to the Railway Administration under the statutory scheme. Accordingly, the claim petition, being devoid of merit, stands rightly dismissed, as no vicarious or statutory liability can, in law, be fastened upon the Respondent Railways in respect of the incident in question.

(ii) It is contended that the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily discharge the initial burden of proof cast upon them under Section 124A of the Act. The evidentiary materials placed on record do not conclusively establish that the deceased fell from the train in question and sustained fatal injuries as a direct consequence of such fall. In the absence of proof of these foundational facts, alleged incident cannot be categorized as an untoward incident or an accidental fall from a running train within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, no statutory liability can be fastened upon the Respondent-Railways to pay compensation under Section 124-A of the Act.

(iii) The Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of A.W.1 and A.W.2, as their deposition lacked credibility and appeared to be tainted with exaggeration and material inconsistencies. The Tribunal, upon due appreciation of evidence, correctly observed that her statements, seemed to be motivated by an ulterior intent to secure compensation, rather than being based on truthful narration of facts. Hence, their testimony could not be accorded any probative value and was rightly discarded as unreliable.

(iv) The appellants have failed to discharge the essential burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket at the time of the alleged incident. The inquest proceedings, as well as other contemporaneous records, do not indicate recovery of any travel ticket from the person. In the absence of any cogent, reliable, and corroborative evidence establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the foundational requirement for attracting the statutory liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, remains unfulfilled. Consequently, the claim for compensation is rendered untenable in law and not maintainable.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar while dismissing the claim application, recorded the following key observations and conclusions:

The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the deceased was not established to be a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal emphasised that at the time of inquest, no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased’s possession.

It is further noted that neither the on-duty guard nor the loco pilot of the alleged train reported witnessing any untoward incident during the journey. Moreover, there is an absence of any eyewitness or co-passenger testimony to substantiate the claim that the deceased fell from the running train. This lack of direct evidence seriously undermines the assertion that the death occurred due to an accident during the course of travel.

The Tribunal held that such circumstances, as they stand, do not demonstrate an accidental fall from the train, and therefore, the occurrence cannot be classified as an “untoward incident”. since establishing such an incident is a sine qua non fir claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Act, this essential requirement remains unfulfilled. And consequently, the Railways are protected under the exception clause of Section 124A of the Act.

The Learned Tribunal placed considerable reliance upon the DRM Report, observing that the same remained unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants during the course of the proceedings. The Tribunal, therefore, treated the said report as a material piece of corroborative evidence supporting the Respondents’ contention that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no incident of accidental fall from a running train had in fact occurred. This uncontroverted report, in the considered view of the Tribunal, lent substantial credence to the Respondents’ version and consequently fortified the ultimate conclusion leading to the dismissal of the claim application.

Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the applicants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application was thus dismissed.

V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The central questions that arise for consideration are:

(i) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

(ii) whether the incident amounts to an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?

(iii) whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?

This Court observed that once the primary facts, namely, the death of a passenger in an “untoward incident” and that such passenger was a bona fide passenger, stood established, the liability of the Railway Administration became absolute. The Court further emphasised that the absence of any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the Railway Administration was of no consequence, inasmuch as the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act embody the principle of strict liability.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527 , wherein it has been held that negligence, even gross negligence, is not a defence available to the Railways under the provision. Hence, once it is established that the death occurred due to an “untoward incident” and the person was a bona fide passenger, compensation becomes payable.

The Tribunal rejected the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger on the ground that no ticket was recovered. However, in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Supreme Court categorically held that the non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive in cases of accidental death involving passengers. The Court accepted that tickets are often lost in such incidents and permitted circumstantial and documentary evidence to establish passengership.

Learned Tribunal entertained a doubt as to whether the incident constituted a fall from the train and speculated that the death might have been occasioned by a run-over. This Court is of the considered view that such a distinction is legally untenable. It is a matter of common occurrence that an accidental fall from a moving train may culminate into the passenger being run over either by the same train or by another, thereby sustaining grievous or fatal injuries. Such a subsequent development does not alter the intrinsic character of the mishap as an “accidental fall”. There is no material on record to suggest any alternative hypothesis, such as the deceased being present on the railway track, independent of the train journey.

In the present case, the Inquest Report, Post-Mortem Report, and the Final Report consistently record that the deceased died due to fall from a running train. No evidence was led by the Railways to rebut this version or to show that the deceased was a trespasser or not booked for travel. Thus, in absence of contrary evidence, and keeping in mind the principles laid down in Rina Devi (supra), the deceased is entitled to be treated as a bona fide passenger.

Upon weighing the evidence on record, the Court finds that the applicants have adduced sufficient material to establish that the deceased was travelling on a valid journey ticket and that he accidentally fell from the train near Lajkura Railway Yard. Such an occurrence clearly falls within the ambit of “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) and does not dislodge the claim within the framework of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

This position stands fortified by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, wherein it was held that the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and must, therefore, be accorded a liberal and purposive interpretation. The Court further observed that adopting a restrictive meaning to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ under Section-123(c) of the Railways Act would defeat the object of the legislation and unjustly deprive a large number of bona fide railway passengers of their rightful claim to compensation in railway accidents.

The underlying object of the statutory scheme is to ensure prompt and equitable compensation to the victims of railway accidents, rather than to entangle them in protracted proceedings of fault-finding or negligence. The denial of relief by the Learned Tribunal runs counter to these settle principles. In the absence of any cogent evidence establishing the applicability of the statutory exceptions, the death of a bona fide passenger on account of a fall from a train squarely fastens statutory liability upon the Respondents- Railways to pay compensation and are accordingly liable to be set aside.

In the present case, there is no material on record to suggest any element of intent or suicidal motive on the part of the deceased. Likewise, there is no evidence indicative of intoxication, mental instability or any other circumstance that could bring the case within the fold of the statutory exceptions enumerated under the proviso to Section 124A of the Act. The conclusion drawn buy the Learned Tribunal on this count is, therefore, devoid of legal foundation and is unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the occurrence in question squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. None of the statutory exceptions to liability stand attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

VI. CONCLUSION:

In view of the foregoing analysis and the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 01.01.2024 passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 152 of 2017 cannot be sustained in law and hereby set aside. It is accordingly declared that the deceased, Budhu Minj met his death in an “untoward incident” within the meaning and contemplation of Section 124A of the Act, and the deceased was a bona fide passenger entitled to the protection and benefits envisaged under the said statutory provision.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed.

The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until payment. The respondent Railways shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within three months, whereupon it shall be disbursed to the appellants in accordance with law.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.