UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI

Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 – held applicable. Rathi Menon v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714 : [2001] 2 SCR 365 ; P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India (1998) 9 SCC 134 ; Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh (1998) 3 SCC 67 ; Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India (2010) TAC 420 SC ; Mohamadi v. Union of India (2011) ACJ 2356 ; Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, Bilaspur UNION OF INDIA v. RINA DEVI 419 Civil Appeal No.5608 of 2017 decided on 25.4.2017 ; Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC 231 ; Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT Central Calcutta [1966] 2 SCR 688 – referred to. Application of Principle of Strict Liabillity - Concept of Self Inflicted Injury:

2.1 Section 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an ‘untoward incident’. Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to section 124A. Coming to the proviso to Section 124A to the effect that no compensation is payable if passenger dies or suffers injury due to the situations mentioned therein, there is no difficulty as regards suicide or attempted suicide in which case no compensation may be payable. [Para 16.1, 16.2][432-B, C]

2.2 The concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. Death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under proviso to s. 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. [Para 16.6][435-B-D]