Railways Liable To Pay Compensation If Bonafide Passenger Suffers Injury Or Death While Alighting Wrongly Boarded Train: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that if a bonafide passenger dies while alighting from a moving train which he/she wrongly boarded, the Railway is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by Rojamani and others and set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, dated 28-04-2016 and said “The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim application is allowed. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation.”

The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.8,00,000 from the respondent-Railway for the death of the deceased Jayamma, wife of late Venkataiah, who died in an alleged untoward incident that occurred on 22.02.2014.

It was said that the deceased Jayamma along with her sister Rathnamma went to Channapatna Railway Station and purchased a journey ticket to go to Ashokpuram/Mysore. While waiting for the Tirupathi passenger train at Channapatna Railway Station, the Tuticorin Express train arrived.

It was stated that both the deceased and her sister boarded the Tuticorin Express and after learning that the said train would not go to their destination station i.e., Ashokpuram, they alighted from the said train. While alighting from the train, the deceased lost balance, accidentally fell down from the train, sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. The applicant contends that it is an untoward incident and filed a claim petition.

The railways opposed the claim petition contending that the death of the deceased was not due to any accidental fall amounting to an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(C) of the Railway Act, but it was due to a deliberate act of alighting from the train which amounts to self-inflicted injuries and by virtue of proviso contained in Section 124 of Railways Act, the respondent is exonerated from the liability to pay compensation.

The tribunal held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger but held that the fall of the deceased was therefore not on account of any jerk or jolt or due to any pressure or thrust from any passengers, but was due to her own voluntary and deliberate act of jumping out of a running train.

It stated that such a fall which is the result of a deliberate and voluntary act on the part of the deceased does not amount to an accidental fall within the meaning of Section 123(C) of the Railways Act and exonerated the Railway from its liability.

The bench relied on Apex court judgments, wherein it was held that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 casts strict liability on the Railway even if the deceased died due to his own fault, and then also, the Railways is liable to pay an amount of compensation.

Following this it said “No doubt, the deceased made an attempt to alight from the train which she wrongly boarded, the Court has to take note of the fact that her sister, who was with her also alighted from the train which was wrongly boarded and in the process of alighting from the said train, that too, in the railway station itself, she accidentally fell down and the Tribunal committed an error in invoking Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, that too, particularly arriving at a conclusion that it is a self inflicted injury and the reasoning given by the Tribunal is erroneous.”

It added that the Tribunal committed an error in answering issue No.1, though answered issue No.2 that the deceased is a bonafide passenger, but wrongly invoked Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 and arrived at an erroneous conclusion that it is a self-inflicted injury.

Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to pay the amount of compensation within a period of eight weeks.

Appearance: Advocate Tanveer Pasha A S For Appellants

Advocate Harsha P Banad for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 195

Case Title: Rojamani & Others AND Union Bank of India

Case No: MFA No 3651 of 2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order