MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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