Judgment · High Court · 2012

#2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the application is that on 30. 6.2008 while the deceased Kukila Begum traveling with her mother with a valid jo urney ticket No.25469 from Salakati Railway station to Chautara Railway station, she accidentally fell down from running 704 Dn Siphung Passenger train due to h eavy rush of passenger and badly injured. She was shifted to Gossaigaon Civil Ho spital for treatment where she died on the next day, i.e. on 1.7.2008. After receipt of the notice of the said claim application, the railway a ppeared and submitted written statement denying the alleged incident that the de ceased had died due to the injury sustained by falling from 704 Dn Siphung Passe nger train on 30.6.2008. They have also denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and prayed for dismissal of the application with cost. The Railway Cla ims Tribunal (’Tribunal’ for short), Guwahati Bench after consideration of the e vidence placed on record by the applicant has arrived at the conclusion that on the relevant date, the deceased Kukila Begum was traveling in the train with her mother after purchasing the ticket. It has been proved that the deceased was tr aveling from Salakati Railway station to Chautara Railway station. It has also n ot been seriously opposed that the 704 Dn Siphung Passenger train does not stop at the Chautara Railway station. It has been proved that the deceased was going to Chautara Railway station from Salakati Railway station and that she fell down from the train due to heavy rush of passenger and badly injured and she succumb ed to her injuries on the next day, i.e. 1.7.2008 at Gossaigaon RNB Civil Hospit al, which would be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (’Act’ for short). With this finding, the compensation of Rs .4,00,000/- as per schedule to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Inci dents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was awarded.

#3. peal is preferred by the Railway. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the present ap

#4. d Ms. D Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Heard Ms. U Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway. Also hear It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findin 5. gs arrived at by the Tribunal that the deceased sustained injuries and as a resu lt thereof died cannot be said to be on account of untoward incident. Further th e Claims tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claimant has not proved the fact that her case does not fall under any of the exceptions under proviso to se ction 124 (A) of the Act and therefore, compensation could not have been awarded under Section 124 (A) of the Act.

#6. Untoward incident has been defined under Section 123 (c) as hereunder;- (cid:28)123.(c) (cid:28)untoward incident (cid:29) means- 1(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of the section 3 of the Terrorist and disruptive Activities (Prevention) Ac t, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting ha ll, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any oth er place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. (cid:29)

#7. A bare perusal of the above definition of untoward incident would mean i nter alia accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Thus any passenger who is traveling in a passengers train falls from the train a ccidentally it would be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 o f the Act. Section 124(A) provides for compensation on account of untoward incid ent. Section 124(A) being relevant is quoted hereunder;- (cid:28)124.A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.- When in the course of wo rking 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 s uch as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a pass enger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect t hereof, 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 pa ssenger 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 tr eatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, (cid:28)passenger (cid:29) includes- (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling, by a train carryin g passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. (cid:29)

#8. This liability of the Railway to pay compensation under Section 124(A) i s irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. Once it is found that there was an unto ward incident, the Railway is liable to pay the compensation. Exceptions from pa yment of compensation by Railway in cases of untoward incident is provided in pr oviso to Section 124 (A), as quoted hereinabove, make it clear that the Railway administration shall not be liable to pay compensation on account of the death i f the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by hi m; self-inflicted injury; own criminal act, any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity or in any natural cause or disease or medical or sur gical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. The Railway can escape liability of payment of compe nsation, only, if the aforesaid circumstances are proved by them. Incidences men tioned in the proviso to section 124(A) of the Act being the exception to the ge neral rule for payment of compensation for the death, the burden lies on the rai lway to prove any of these circumstances, which may fall within the exceptions. In the absence of any proof by the railway administration, it shall be presumed that the accident occurred on account of untoward incident.

#9. In the present case in hand, the railway has not led any evidence to bri ng the case within the proviso to section 124 (A) of the Act. Once it is found t hat the death was occurred on account of untoward incident, the direction for pa yment of compensation by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. The judgment of the Tribunal is well founded and is based on the materials placed on record. He nce, no interference is called for with the judgment so passed by the Tribunal.

#10. for the amount as directed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. No costs. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The claimant is entitled

#11. Send down the lower court records forthwith.