Passenger’s negligence cannot be grounds for rejecting railway accident claim: HC

Negligence on part of the deceased cannot be grounds to reject a railway accident claim by his family, the Bombay high court (HC) held on Thursday and directed Central

Negligence on part of the deceased cannot be grounds to reject a railway accident claim by his family, the Bombay high court (HC) held on Thursday and directed Central

HT Image

Railway (CR) to pay compensation of ₹8 lakh to a couple from Tiwsa in the Amravati district.

The couple, Vijay Thakur, 60, and his wife Megha, 52, had moved the HC after the Railway Accident Class Tribunal rejected their claim for compensation following the death of their son, Akash (AGE).

The couple had sought compensation claiming that on January 29, 2014, while returning to his native place from Nagpur, Akash fell off a running train near Borkhedi railway station and died on the spot.

In support of their claim, the Thakur’s lawyer had examined a friend of Akash, who testified that he had purchased a ticket for the deceased at Nagpur and had seen him board the express train for Chandur railway station. The witness had also stated that Akash had to travel standing near the door, as the train was overcrowded.

The tribunal, however, refused to accept the claim. It concluded the railway’s contention that the body was cut in two pieces and therefore the deceased must have either been run over by a running train while crossing the tracks or must have committed suicide. Besides, it held that he was not a bonafide passenger as no ticket was found on him or near the spot of the incident.

The HC, however, found that the tribunal had overlooked important documents – an investigation report submitted by the Railway Protection Force and the written statement submitted before the tribunal.

Justice MG Giratkar noted that both the documents stated that the deceased was travelling either by sitting or standing near the door of a railway coach and he fell from the running train. The documents added that as the deceased died due to his negligence, and since no ticket was found at the spot of incident, CR was not liable for the death.

Justice Giratkar, however, said, “Once it is held that the deceased was travelling in the train and he fell from the running train, it is an untoward incident as defined in section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.” He said that this gave rise to a valid claim of compensation.

As regards cutting of the body in two pieces, the judge said it cannot be concluded that the deceased must have been run over by a running train or he might have committed suicide by jumping in front of a running train.

The court added that the conclusion drawn by the tribunal was based on evidence of the station master, who was not a witness to the incident. None had witnessed the incident. Besides, the judge said there were no cogent reasons that came forward for the deceased to go to Borkhedi and cross the tracks or commit suicide.

“Nobody can imagine as to what will happen when a person falls from the running train,” said the judge, adding that there are several possible situations in which a person falling from a running train may get thrown under its wheels.