Railway Authority Liable To Pay Compensation Even If Claimant Was Trying to De-board Moving Train: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (“the Act”) deals with compensation on account of untoward incidents.

The bench comprising Justice G. S. Ahluwalia observed that such a scenario would not be hit by the proviso of Section 124-A of the Act -

The counsel for the appellants could not point out any provision of law to show that any attempt to deboard a moving train is an offence. Therefore, section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra) has also held that an attempt to deboard a moving train will not fall under proviso to Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed a material illegality by rejecting the claim of the claimants on the ground that the deceased was not travelling in a train with a validly issued railway ticket and his claim is hit by Section 124-A of Railways Act. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to seek compensation.

Facts of the case were that the Appellant’s husband (deceased) met with an accident while trying to deboard a moving train. His family members moved the Railways Claim Tribunal seeking compensation from the authority. However, their claim was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that it was hit by the proviso of Section 124-A of the Act. In addition to that, the Tribunal observed that the deceased was not carrying a valid ticket with him as the same was not submitted by the Claimants along with their application. Aggrieved, the kin of the deceased moved the Court.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the appeal. With respect to the objection raised by the Tribunal regarding the deceased travelling without a valid ticket, the Court noted that the Roznamcha (report ) prepared by the Railway Police Force mentioned that he had a valid ticket in his possession. Thus, it observed that even if the ticket was not submitted before the Tribunal, it cannot be held that the deceased was travelling without it -

It is also clear from the Roznamcha Sanha that the deceased was all alone and his children were informed by mobile. Since the deceased was in a badly injured shape and he was not accompanied by any of his family members, therefore, it was not expected for the injured/deceased to keep the tickets in a safe custody…The manner in which the Roznamcha Sanha has been written it is clear that at the time of writing the Roznamcha Sanha, the Sub-Inspector, R.P.F. was in possession of the tickets which the deceased was carrying with him…Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that by putting the reverse burden of proof on the claimants in the face of the Roznamcha Sanha written by Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., the Claims Tribunal has committed a material illegality. The claimants had discharged their initial burden of proof to show that the deceased was travelling with a validly issued railway ticket.

The Court then dealt with the other objection raised by the Tribunal regarding the claim of the Appellants being hit by the proviso of Section 124-A of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in UoI v. Reena Devi, it held that deboarding a moving train would not fall under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Act. Corollary to the same, it concluded that the Appellants were entitled to seek compensation.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to decide on the question regarding quantum of compensation.