A case concerning the death of a man named Sarbeswar Swain during train travel was brought before the Orissa High Court, which ruled in favour of his legal heirs and ordered the railway authorities to pay compensation. The man had been travelling from Allahabad to Cuttack in the Neelachal Express when, on December 25, 2006, he suffered a sudden jolt inside the train compartment that caused him to fall, rendering him unconscious. He sustained severe injuries to his brain along with other bodily injuries. He was rushed to a Government hospital, but despite medical attention, he died on December 27, 2006 from those injuries. His legal heir filed a claim petition on August 27, 2007, seeking ₹4,00,000 in compensation plus interest at 12% per annum and legal costs.
The Railway Claims Tribunal initially dismissed the claim, on the ground that death had occurred due to cardiac arrest and not as a result of any jolt or fall. On appeal, the High Court in 2023 reviewed the post-mortem report, which had attributed cause of death to shock and hemorrhage and ruled out cardiac arrest. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider whether the claimant was entitled to compensation under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which deals with “untoward incidents” during train travel. The Tribunal, in its reconsideration, again rejected the claim, concluding that Section 123(c)(2), which specifically addresses accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, did not apply because the fall had happened inside the train rather than from it.
On the latest hearing, the High Court held that the case did constitute an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The Court emphasized that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation and must be given a liberal interpretation in favour of claimants. It noted that whether a passenger fell from a moving train or had an accident inside a train, if the injury or death resulted in the course of train travel in circumstances of an “untoward incident”, the claimant is entitled to relief. The Court also observed that public transport, especially railways, is an enterprise where strict liability applies: because railways provide a hazardous service and enjoy monopoly, the burden of risks must be borne by them even in absence of proved negligence, except where legal exceptions apply.
The Court made clear that the Railway Administration cannot use absence of negligence as a shield from liability in such cases. It underscored that strict liability serves not only fairness to the individual citizen who suffers harm, but also maintains faith in the system of public transport. The Court lamented the long delay in obtaining relief: nearly nineteen years had passed since the death of the deceased when the legal heir finally achieved a judgment acknowledging the right to compensation. The delay was described as undermining public confidence in the system.
In light of precedent, particularly the Supreme Court’s rulings in similar claims, the High Court fixed the compensation amount at ₹9,23,562. It ordered the amount to be paid within four months of the judgment. The Court stressed that compassion and assistance must be the first response of the railways towards families of deceased passengers, and that the law demands recognition of their lawful right to travel and protection rather than forcing them into protracted litigation.
WhatsApp Group Invite
Join WhatsApp Community
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.