Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

High Court Holds Railway Liable for Compensation in Untoward Incident Resulting in Passenger's Death

04 September 2024 9:56 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, held the Union of India's South Central Railway responsible for compensating the family of a deceased passenger in a tragic untoward incident. The court, in First Appeal No. 57 of 2023, overturned the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest.

The case involved the untimely demise of Dilip Dhaneshwar Rajak, a bona fide passenger on train No. 07008 (Darbhanga to Secunderabad) Express. On 21/07/2018, while the train was passing Makodi railway station, an unfortunate incident occurred. Smoke and fire engulfed the bogie, prompting the passengers to seek help. Some passengers pulled the emergency chain, forcing the train to stop. In the chaos that ensued, Dilip, along with others, alighted from the train and sought refuge on the railway track.

Tragically, another train, No. 16317 Himsagar Express, struck Dilip, resulting in his immediate demise. The grieving parents, Dhaneshwar Rajak and Lila Devi, filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the accident. They argued that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the respondent railway.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim, asserting that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and failed to provide a valid ticket. The tribunal opined that the incident did not qualify as an untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Railway Act, absolving the railway of liability.

The High Court, upon hearing the appeal, considered the evidence presented by the claimants. The deposition of a co-passenger, Jaikishan Singh, established that Dilip and he were bona fide passengers, holding valid tickets for their journey. The court noted that the absence of a ticket does not conclusively prove that the passenger was not bona fide, and the burden shifts to the railway to disprove the claim of a valid ticket.

Referring to previous judgments, the court emphasized the strict liability of the railway in compensating victims of untoward incidents. It held that the incident in question fell within the purview of Section 124-A of the Railway Act and that the railway failed to establish any exceptions to its liability. Therefore, the court set aside the tribunal's order and directed the respondent Union of India to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- to the claimants, along with 6% interest from the date of filing the application.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the railways' responsibility to ensure passenger safety and the need to compensate victims and their families in the event of untoward incidents. The court's decision reaffirms the principle of strict liability and the importance of establishing a liberal and wider interpretation of the law in favor of the claimants.

Date of Decision: 12/06/2023

Dhaneshwar Rajak   vs Union of India

Latest Legal News