The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group!

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

Similar News