Nabanita Das & Anr vs Union Of India

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J

In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Case No.283 of 2016 which dismissed their 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 9.10.2016, the deceased Anup Das was travelling from Khadagpur to Jajpur on the strength of valid journey ticket purchased from Khadagpur Railway Station by the Howrah-Chennai Express Train.

(ii) The Appellants submit that during the course of the journey, the compartment in which the deceased was travelling was overcrowded, and owing to a sudden jerk caused by the abrupt application of brakes coupled with the push and pull of fellow passengers, the deceased lost his balance, fell from the running train in Platform No.1 at Jajpur Road, as a result he was succumbed with injuries and died on the spot.

(iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 283 of 2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the death of the deceased in the untoward incident.

(iv) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed five issues for consideration and upon, detailed examination, concluded that the victim is not a bona fide passenger nor victim of any untoward incident. The claim application was accordingly dismissed.

(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020 passed in the Original Application No. 15 of 2017 by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

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 submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased is against the weight of the evidences on record, suffers from mis-appreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.

(ii) The Appellants submit that the contemporaneous documentary evidence, particularly issued by the Police authorities, unequivocally demonstrate the deceased met with death as a direct consequence of an untoward incident occurring in the course of the journey. However, the Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the matter, failed to appreciate these material pieces of evidence in their proper legal perspective and instead proceeded to render the impugned judgment on conjectural and presumptive reasoning. The Tribunal has further erred in placing unwarranted reliance upon the DRM Report, which, being a post-incident document prepared much belatedly subsequent to the occurrence and after institution of the claim application, cannot be accorded overriding evidentiary value over the contemporaneous police records.

(iii) The Learned Tribunal, without adverting to or taking judicial notice of the relevant facts, circumstances, and evidentiary materials available on record, has proceeded to erroneously reject the claim application on a wholly misconceived premise that the death of the deceased might have occurred under one of the exceptions engrafted in the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The learned Tribunal, while recording such findings, has further misdirected itself in law by concluding that the deceased was neither a Bona fide passenger nor a victim of an untoward incident within the contemplation of Section 123(c)(2) of the said Act. The aforesaid conclusions, being contrary to the weight of evidence, suffer from manifest illegality, perversity, and non-application of mind, and are, therefore, ex facie unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.

(iv) The final report of the Investigating Agency, together with the Post-Mortem report and Inquest Proceedings, conclusively establish the death of the deceased occurred as a direct consequence of a fall from the running train during the course of his journey. The contemporaneous and official records leave no manner of doubt as to the cause and nature of the incident. Significantly, no cogent or credible evidence was adduced by the Respondents-Railways to controvert or rebut the said findings, and hence the same stand unrebutted and uncontroverted on record.

(v) It is submitted that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, being a piece of beneficial and welfare legislation, is required to be interpreted in a liberal and purposive manner so as to advance the object of social justice underlying the statute. The provision embodies the principle of strict liability on the part of the Railway Administration in case of death or injury arising out of an untoward incident during the course of a bona fide journey. Unless the case squarely falls within one of the express exceptions craved out in the proviso to Section 124A, the liability of the Railways to compensate the victim or the legal heirs of the deceased is absolute and does not depend upon proof of negligence or fault.

(vi) In view of foregoing, it is submitted that the Learned Tribunal has gravely erred in law and on facts in dismissing the claim application despite the existence of ample oral and documentary evidence conclusively establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death occurred as a result of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The findings recorded by the Learned Tribunal are manifestly perverse, contrary to the evidentiary record, and unsustainable in the eye of law. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award are liable to be quashed and set aside, and the Appellants are entitled to compensation along with statutory interest are envisaged under Section 124A of the said Act.

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 alleged “untoward incidents”, the initial evidentiary burden indubitably rests upon the claimant to establish the foundational facts necessary to attract the statutory presumption of accidental causation contemplated under Section 124A of the Act. In the instant case, the Appellants have, however, failed to satisfactorily discharge this burden. The surrounding circumstances, when objectively assessed in the light of the available record, do not lend credence to the theory of an accidental fall from a running train; rather they unmistakably point towards a self-inflicted act culminating in a suicidal run-over. Such conduct squarely falls within the exceptions expressly engrafted in the proviso to Section 124A of the Act and thereby excludes the operation of the principle of strict or no-fault liability otherwise attaching to the Railway Administration under the statutory scheme. Consequently, the claim petition, being devoid of merit, stands rightly dismissed, as no vicarious or statutory liability can, in law, be fastened upon the Respondent-Railway in relation to the incident in question.

(ii) The Tribunal, upon a meticulous appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly disbelieved the testimony, observing that his deposition appeared to be actuated by self-interest and guided by an ulterior motive to secure compensation under the guise of an “untoward incident”.

The material inconsistencies, embellishments, and contradictions discernible in his testimony, when juxtaposed with the surrounding circumstances and absence of any credible independent corroboration, clearly detract from its probative worth. The Tribunal, therefore, was fully justified in holding that such evidence, being tainted by mala fides and coloured by pecuniary inducement rather that veracity, could not be accorded any evidentiary sanctity in the adjudication of the claim.

(iii) The Appellants have failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket. The absence of primary evidence to substantiate bona fide passengership renders the claim inherently doubtful and indicative of an attempt to fabricate a case for compensation. In the absence of cogent and admissible proof fulfilling the essential precondition under Section 124A of the Act, the statutory liability of the Respondent- Railways cannot be invoked. Accordingly, the claim is devoid of merit and liable to dismissal.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar while dismissing the claim application, recoded 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. It found that the journey ticket allegedly recovered, was a later insertion and not genuine. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim could not be sustained in the absence of proof of lawful travel by the deceased.

The Tribunal observed that the initial burden lay upon the applicants to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Tribunal further noted that there is an absence of any eyewitness or co-passenger testimony to substantiate the claim that the deceased fell from the running train. The body of the deceased was found on the middle of the track. Hence, 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 the accidental fall from the train, and therefore, the occurrence was not an “untoward incident”. Since establishing such an incident is a sine qua non for claiming compensation under Section 124A, 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 Divisional Railway Manager’s (DRM) Report, observing that the same remained unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants during the course of 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. The 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.

The medical opinion expressed in the post-mortem, noted that the deceased died from shock and haemorrhage due to injury to both upper limbs and left foot, with death classified as accidental. However, it emphasized the burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish that the death resulted specifically from accidental fall from the running train. Since the claimants failed to provide satisfactory evidence to meet this burden, the claim compensation under Section 124A of the Act was rightly rejected.

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:

A. whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

B. 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?

C. 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.

The Learned Tribunal rejected the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger on the ground that no ticket or travel bag was recovered and no oral evidence was led by the Appellants. 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.

At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, enacts a regime of strict liability. The provision stipulates that once it is established that the death or injury has occurred as a result of an “untoward incident”, the Railway Administration is bound to pay compensation, irrespective of any negligence or default on its part, unless the case falls within the specific exceptions craved out in the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act.

In the present case, the inquest report, post-mortem report, and the final police 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. The Respondents, on the other hand, failed to adduce any cogent material to rebut such evidence, and sought instead to rely upon speculative observations made in the DRM’s inquiry.

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 in Jajpur Road Railway Station. 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.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that in cases involving untoward incidents, particularly where the activity in question is carried out under the control or supervision of a statutory authority such as Railway Administration in the present case, the principle of strict liability stands squarely attracted. The Central Government, acting through the Railway Administration, has thus rightly been fastened with the statutory obligation to compensate victims of such incidents. The doctrine of strict liability, as evolved and firmly entrenched in Indian Jurisprudence, applies with full force to statutory undertakings engaged in activities affecting public safety and welfare.

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. It is a settled position of law that once the claimant establishes, even prima facie, the status of the deceased bona fide passenger, the burden shifts upon the Railway Administration to disprove the same by leading cogent evidence.

In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India 2024 INSC 603, wherein it was held that the initial burden upon the claimant may be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, and thereafter, the onus lies upon the Railways to rebut such evidence. The court further observed that the mere-recovery of a journey ticket at the time of inquest, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof to negate the claim of bona fide passengership, particularly in cases accidental death arising out of untoward incidents.

In the instant case, the evidence unequivocally establishes that the death of the deceased occurred due to ambit of an “untoward incident” and none of the statutory exceptions to liability enumerated under the proviso to Section 124A stand attracted. There is no material on record to suggest that he intended to cause self-harm or was engaged in any act constituting an offence. Being a bona fide passenger at the relevant time, the deceased squarely falls within the protective ambit of the statute. Consequently, the claim application is maintainable in law, and the Railway Administration is statutorily liable to compensate, irrespective of fault or negligence.

VI. CONCLUSION:

In the light of the foregoing discussion and material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the appellants have established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred as a result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The evidence adduced by the Appellants, being cogent and credible, clearly demonstrates that none of the statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 124A stand attracted in the present case. Consequently, the liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation under the said provision stands established.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2020, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 283 of 2016 is hereby set aside.

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.