1. Heard Mr. R. G. Bagul, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Ms. N. G. Chaubey, learned Counsel for the Respondent/UOI.
2. In the present Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and Order dated 29/4/2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/84/2024 filed by the Appellant is dismissed.
3. The Perusal of the Judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal shows that the Claim Application of the Appellant was dismissed mainly on the two grounds, firstly, that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that deceased Ankush Ashok Nimkar was not bona fide passenger; and secondly, that there was no any untoward incident as alleged by the present Appellant in the matter. According to the Tribunal, both these issues are not established by way of concrete proof available on record, and therefore, relying upon the Judgment of Union of India V/s Rina Devi, (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 572, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Application.
4. It is the case of Appellant/Mother that on 14/5/2023 deceased Ankush went to Murtizapur for purchasing raw material of his business by train from Chandur-Rly. In the return journey when the train arrived at Platform No.2 of Murtizapur Railway Station at KM No. 621/4-6, the untoward incident took place and died on the spot.
5. The Appellant has further relied upon the evidence of the friend of the deceased namely, Haribhau @ Harichand Sahdev Mehare, who stated that on 14/5/2023 deceased came to his house and requested to drop him at Railway Station, Chandur Railway by stating that he is going to Murtizapur to purchase raw material for his business. Accordingly, he has dropped him at Railway Station, Chandur Rly. and then deceased proceeded to Murtizapur for purchasing the material of his business, as he was running panipuri stall, by train from Chandur Rly.
6. The Appellant has stated that in view of abovesaid affidavit placed on record, initial burden was discharged by the present Appellant. According to the Appellant, after the deceased left at Chandur Railway Station, deceased went to Murtizapur and accident took place near the Railway Station, Murtizapur, therefore, the relevant fact that deceased went to Murtizapur, as per the submission of the Appellant, is established on record.
7. The Appellant states that as she has discharged her burden, same was shifted to the Respondent. The Respondent, therefore, ought to have established on record by concrete proof that the incident, as stated by the Appellant, was not an untoward incident, but falls under the proviso of 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. But the Respondent failed to discharge their burden.
8. Per contra, it is the case of the Appellant that from the evidence which was recorded before the Tribunal, it is clear that the incident took place at Murtizapur Railway Station and witnesses produced by the Respondent support the case of Appellant. The Appellant has specifically relied upon the statement of Loco Pilot namely, Radha Kishan Meghwal. He has specifically stated that Train No. 12139 Sevagram Express was running late on that day and same was reached at Murtizapur Railway Station near about 3.10 hours and left the platform within one minute i.e. 3.11 hours. As such, the train was stopped at Murtizapur Railway Station hardly for one minute, as per the record of the Respondent. Then the Appellant has also relied upon the Statement of Sandeep Madhukar Tayade, who was working at the relevant time as Constable of RPF. He has stated before the Tribunal that on 15/5/2023 he was posted as RPF personnel at Murtizapur Railway Station from 00.00 hours to 08.00 hours at Beet A1. He categorically stated that at around 3.10 hours Train No. 12139 DN. arrived at Platform No.2 and immediately departed from the said platform. After departure of the Train when he was going to BSL/end from Platform No.2, he saw body of one unknown person which was cut into two pieces on Down Loop line of KM No./621/4-6.
9. From the statements of the witnesses on record on behalf of the Railway Administration, it is clear that on that day the Train was running late for three hours. Same was stopped only for one minute and immediately after its departure from the Platform No. 2, the RPF Personnel Sandeep Tayade has seen the body of deceased lying on the Platform No.2. From this fact only conclusion can be drawn that the deceased was trying to board the train when it was arrived at 3.10 hours, but as the same was departed within one minute only, there is a possibility that while boarding the train, an untoward accident was occurred. On the basis of the evidence available on record, it is the submission of the present Appellant that she is entitled for compensation in the matter.
10. The learned Counsel for Respondent has strongly opposed the present Appeal. It is stated that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rina Devi (supra), mere finding of the body of deceased on the railway track, is not sufficient to grant compensation to the Claimant. The Appellant must specifically discharge the burden by stating relevant facts and only then burden would shift on the Respondent to rebut the submission of the Claimant in the matter.
11. According to Respondent, from the affidavit filed by the Appellant on record, it is clear that she has no where pleaded that by which train the deceased was intended to travel from Murtizapur to Chandur Railway. The details were given in the affidavit of the Appellant that deceased went to Murtizapur for purchasing raw material, however, no such raw material was found near the body of the deceased. Hence, according to the Respondent, Appellant failed to discharge her initial burden, and hence on this count alone, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
12. One more argument advanced by the learned Counsel for Respondent in the light of observation made by the Tribunal that body of the deceased was found cut into two pieces and same was not possible in an accident falling a person from the train. Therefore, the Appellant is not entitled for any compensation.
13. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for Appellant has stated that in an accident or untoward incident, one cannot visualised that what type of injury a person can suffer, because one cannot say exactly in what particular manner the accident will take place. In common parlance, the term “accident” means a sudden and unexpected event, not under the control of any one. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that accident should take place in a particular manner. It may happen that a person standing in the doorway of a train or while boarding the train, lost balance when the train suddenly starts or gives a jerk, and in that jerk, hand of a person may slipped from the door railing and he came down under the wheel of the train, as a result of which, accident can be taken place in that manner.
14. To substantiate this submission, the Appellant has relied upon the Judgment of the Honb’ble Delhi High Court in First Appeal No. 211/2014 in the case of Sh. Prempal Singh & Anr. V/s Union of India decided on 24/4/2018, wherein the identical factual position was considered and recorded the finding in paragraph No.7 as under :
“7. The reasoning in the impugned order that because the deceased was cut into halves: one part found inside the railway tracks and the other outside, the death could not have been caused due to accidental falling from a moving train, is flawed. The impossibility of a passenger being so crushed after a fall from a moving train has not been conclusively established in law, so as to obviate all such claims for compensation. It is possible that the deceased while standing near the overcrowded passenger compartment door, slipped down while holding on to the door- railing, and frantically tried to recover and re-board the train with his legs flailing violently, and in the valiant and violent melee his legs or his body could have unfortunately come under the wheels of the train leading to his being consumed in the fatal accident. As long as such possibility exists, the claim cannot be ousted or denied on technical assumptions. There is not a divine camera which could replay the actual manner of the fatality, but all factors lead to the inexorable conclusion that a bonafide passenger died in an untoward train accident. There is also no reason why the deceased would be walking the railway tracks in an odd place en-route his destination - his home. It is not that he lived near the site of the accident or that he had any regular business anywhere near the place of the accident. Thus the inference that he died while crossing the tracks, is unwarranted and untenable.”
From the observations of the Delhi High Court, I am satisfied that while the passenger boarding the train or standing on the doorway of train, if his hand slipped from the door railing, such accident could take place. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Railway Tribunal so also the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent in this regard is not sustainable in the matter.
15. In the present matter, Respondent may correct to state that the Appellant did not discharge her initial burden, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rina Devi (supra). But the fact remains that the evidence, which is available on record, is also having same importance and on the basis of said evidence, if the positive conclusion can be drawn, in my considered opinion, there is no such law which prohibits the Court or Tribunal to discard the said evidence merely because Claimant could not state relevant fact and dismiss the Claim Application.
16. In the present case, from the statement of Loco Pilot and RPF personnel, it is clear that the train arrived at Murtizapur Railway Station at 3.10 hours and departed within one minute i.e. 3.11 hours. The RPF Personnel has specifically stated in his cross-examination, which is a part of record at A-125, as under :
“...................It is correct to suggest that dead body was found after departure of train no.12139 DN. It is true to suggest that before passing the train no. 12139 DN there was no dead body lying on the track. I have no any information regarding any person dashing by the train or committed suicide.”
17. In the light of this submission, it is pointed out that on considering this evidence, which is available on record, only possible conclusion can be drawn that the deceased was waiting for train at Murtizapur Railway Station and while boarding the train, an untoward accident took place, and his body was found immediately after departure of the train from Murtizapur Railway Station, it is a case of untoward incident.
18. The above evidence, which is a part of record, cannot be denied merely for the reason that the Appellant failed to discharge her burden in the matter. Normally, the Claimants are not the eye-witnesses of incident. The Tribunal is required to consider the entire facts and circumstances of the matter. If the facts available on record shows that the deceased caused death in a Railway accident, mere fact that Claimant did not state in detail about the untoward incident, cannot be a reason to reject the Claim Application.
19. It would be further relevant to note that this view is required to be taken into consideration while deciding the Claim Application, because the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India V/s Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, 2008(9) SCC 527, while making observation in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 has specifically stated that Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines the word “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket and the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes accidents when a bona fide passenger while trying to enter into a train and fell down during the process. The Court, while deciding the Claim Application, requires purposive and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression. The paragraph Nos.14 and 15 are reads as under :
“14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.
15. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines "passenger" to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket, Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines "untoward incident" to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, Section 124-A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states:
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the Railway Administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to—
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section, 'passenger' includes—
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."
(emphasis supplied)”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Curt of India in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma and Others (Demonetisation Case-5 J.) V/s Union of India and Others, (2023) 3 SCC 1 has considered the term “purposive interpretation” of a statutory provision. While considering this provision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court must refrain from declaring a statute to be unworkable. The rules of interpretation require that construction which carries forward the objectives of the statute, protects interest of the parties and keeps the remedy alive, should be preferred looking into the text and context of the statute. Construction given by the Court must promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and not efface its very purpose.
21. In this regard, it would be further relevant to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Jameela and Others V/s Union of India, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 443, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if it is assumed that deceased fell from the train due to his own negligence, the Railway Authority cannot deny the compensation unless they established that the case of deceased falls under the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment i.e. 6 and 7 are as under :
“6. Before the High Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the Railways on the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act which provides that no compensation will be payable under that section by the Railway Administration if the passenger died or suffered injury due to (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him, (b) self-inflicted injury, or (c) his own criminal act. A reference was also made to Section 154 of the Act which provides that if any person does any act in a rash and negligent manner, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon any Railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. It was further contended on behalf of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was standing at the door from where he fell down near Magarwara Railway Station, where the train does not stop. (It needs to be pointed out that this contention could only be based on speculation, as admittedly there was no eyewitness to the accident). The High Court accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the Railways and allowed the appeal observing as follows:
"On the basis of the law and facts indicated by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the present case the victim is to be blamed for the incident being negligent and therefore this case is not covered by the definition of untoward incident. However, so far as the compensation is concerned the case of the claimant is covered by the provision of Section 124-A as because of his own negligence the deceased had fallen down from the train which caused his death. Further, in the light of the fact that the deceased acted in a negligent manner without any precaution of safety by station (sic) going at the open door of the running train which resulted into his death."
(emphasis added)
7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act.”
22. In view of this legal position and the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of the cases that the provisions of Railways Act must be interpreted liberally, particularly in the cases of compensation. In the present case, it is established on record that immediately after departure of train, body of the deceased was found on railway track, which is a case of an untoward incident. In such circumstances, the case of Appellant do not fall under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
23. It is also well settled position of law that while deciding the Claim Application, the Court must take a pragmatic view and must keep in mind the fact that Appellants, who are unfortunate legal heirs of the deceased should get just and fair compensation in the matter.
24. In the background of abovesaid legal position, in the present case though the Appellant is at fault to not stating the relevant facts in her affidavit, the Railway Administration, while entering into the witness-box before the Railway Tribunal, has clarified the entire factual aspect in the matter. Therefore, the evidence available on record before the Railway Tribunal can always be looked into while deciding the controversy involved in the matter. Hence, in my considered opinion, Appellant is entitled for compensation. Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER
1. First Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 29/4/2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/84/2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The Appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of Judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur till its realisation within a period of three months.
4. The Appellant shall deposit compensation amount within a period of three months in the bank account of the Appellant.
