Plea Of 'No Fault' Or 'Negligence Of Victim' Not Available To Railway Administration: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court awarded a compensation of Rs.4 lakh along with interest @ 9% per annum to a passenger who received injuries due to sudden jolt of a train in 2013, observing that the liability of the "Railway Administration is based on the 'principle of strict liability'."
Justice Pankaj Jain said, "Plea of 'no fault of railways' or 'negligence of the victim' is not available to the Railway Administration."
The Court summarised the following principles:
Railway is liable to pay to an injured passenger or to the dependants of a passenger killed in an untoward incident involving railways. The passenger for the purpose of Chapter XIII of the Railways Act does not necessarily mean a passenger as contemplated under Section 2(29) of the 1989 Act. Rather explanation appended to Section 124A provides that the passenger shall include:
a) a railway servant on duty;
b) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date; or
c) a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
The definition is inclusive. It does not exclude any category. Definition of 'passenger' as appended to Section 124A by explanation is much wider than the definition of 'passenger' as provided under Section 2(29) of the Railway Act, 1989.
Untoward incident is different from accident. 'Untoward incident' is defined under Section 123(c) of the 1989 Act. Under five situations as contemplated under proviso appended to Section 124A, the Railway Administration may be absolved of its liability. Any other situation that does not fall within the ambit of proviso appended to Section 124-A, invites liability of Railway Administration to pay compensation.
The case pertains to a passenger who fell down from the train due to push of passengers and sustained injuries. The fall from the train resulted in partial amputation of right foot of the passenger Joginder Thakur besides implanting of iron rod in left arm and head injury.
The Tribunal rejected the compensation claim holding that no evidence was produced by the claimant to prove that he was having a valid train ticket and thus, the claimant being not a bonafide passenger, cannot claim the compensation.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has misread the evidence on record and journey ticket which was issued on 23.09.2013 for a journey from Darbhanga to Jagadhri was placed on record.
After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that the Doctrine of strict liability was applied to adjudicate the claims arising out of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, [(2008) 9 SCC 527] wherein it rejected the plea of 'no fault on part of the railways'.
Reliance was also placed on Jameela and others vs. Union of India, [2010 AIR SC 3705] wherein exceptions carved out under the proviso attached to Section 124A were interpreted by Supreme Court.
"A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” said the Apex Court.
In the present case, the Court noted that the appellant has placed on record the purchase of ticket by him. Thus, the initial onus in terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi, [(2019) 3 SCC 572] stands discharged.
Justice Jain highlighted that the appellant sustained injuries due to sudden jerk and jolt of the train. The said situation does not fall within the exceptions as carved out in the proviso appended to Section 124A of the Railways Act.
Stating that, "the accident is of the year 2013. Thus, the compensation awarded to the appellant shall be as per Part I of the Schedule appended to the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 prior to amendment dated 1st of January, 2017 i.e. Rs.4.00 lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum payable for the period from the date of application till the date of actual realization," the Court allowed the appeal.
Mr. S.R. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.
title: Joginder Thakur v. Union of India