[Railway Accident] Person Not Being A Rly Servant Travelling In A Goods Train Not Entitled To Compensation: Jharkhand High Court

In an important observation, the Jharkhand High Court has said that if a person, not being a railway employee, is traveling in a goods train and falls down from such a train, then he is not entitled to compensation from the Railway administration.

The bench of Justice Ananda Sen further clarified that if such a person cannot be treated as a passenger in terms of Section 123(C)(2) of the Indian Railways Act and therefore, he is not entitled to be compensated.

Here it may be noted that Section 123(C)(2) says that an untoward incident would include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, and as per Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation when an untoward incident occurs.

Essentially, if Section 123 (c) (2) and 124A of the Act are read together, then it provides that if a passenger falls accidentally from a passenger train and injury is caused to him or he dies, the claimant is entitled to grant of compensation.

The case in brief

The wife of the deceased (claimant) moved to the High court after her claim was dismissed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, her husband.

As per her version, her husband was traveling in a passenger train and he had fallen down from a running passenger train. However, the tribunal ruled that she had failed to establish that the deceased had died due to an accident on fall from a passenger train.

When she moved to the High Court, the Railways submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the Railways clearly suggested that the deceased did not die because of any untoward incident as he had fallen from a goods train and not a passenger trian.

Here it may be reiterated that an untoward incident is said to occur, inter alia, when a person accidentally falls of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

Court's observations

Taking into account the evidence adduced, the Court came to the conclusion that it was proved that he had fallen off a goods train and not a passenger train and therefore, the question that remained to be adjudicated was - since he had fallen off a goods train and he was not a railway servant, then whether he could be said to be a passenger?

In this regard, noting that a passenger, even if he had a valid tick, is not authorized to travel in a goods train, the Court observed thus:

"A goods train is not for carrying passengers. Passenger trains are meant to carry passengers and no one is allowed to travel as passenger in a goods train. Railway tickets to the passengers are not issued to travel in a goods train. If the person, not being a railway servant, for the reasons best known, travels in a goods train, he cannot be treated as a passenger in terms of Section 123(C)(2) of the Indian Railways Act."

Thus, the Court observed that since there was a high probability that he was traveling in goods train without authority, as such he cannot be said to be a passenger to get coverage under Section 123(C)(2) of the Indian Railways Act.

Thus, the Court upheld the view of the tribunal and ruled that the claimant was not entitled to receive any compensation. 

Case Title - Madhu devi v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

Click Here To Read/Download Order