The Orissa High Court has held that if a passenger accidentally falls from a moving train and is subsequently run over—whether by the same train or another—it constitutes an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby making the Railway administration strictly liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Act. The Court clarified that such an accident does not lose its character as an accidental fall merely because the victim was later run over, and that the fatal consequence does not alter the essential nature of the incident.
The case concerned Krushna Chandra Sahoo, who was travelling on the Visakha Express with a valid ticket when he fell from the train between Lingaraj and Bhubaneswar after a sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and the rush of passengers. He lost his balance, fell from the moving train, and died instantly after being run over. The claimant filed a compensation claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 124A, but the Tribunal refused to categorize the incident as an “untoward incident” and denied compensation. It further concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, thereby exempting the Railways from liability.
On appeal, the High Court reviewed the evidence and found that a valid train ticket was recovered from the spot near the body of the deceased, confirming that he was indeed a bona fide passenger. The Court rejected the Tribunal’s speculation that the death might have been a case of suicide or that the deceased was negligently present on the tracks. There was no evidence to support these theories. The Court held that once an accidental fall from a train is established, compensation under Section 124A becomes mandatory unless the case clearly falls under one of the statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, or criminal act.
The Court emphasized that Section 124A imposes strict and no-fault liability on the Railways. This means that even in the absence of negligence on the part of the Railway administration, compensation cannot be denied once the incident qualifies as an “untoward incident.” Administrative reports or assumptions by railway authorities cannot override clear and credible evidence such as inquest and postmortem reports. The Court observed that denying compensation on speculative or technical grounds would defeat the purpose of the Railways Act, which is a welfare-oriented legislation designed to protect the rights of passengers and their families.
Applying these principles, the Orissa High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s order, and directed the Railways to pay compensation of eight lakh rupees with six percent annual interest from the date of filing of the claim until the date of payment. The Court’s ruling reaffirmed that when a bona fide passenger dies as a result of falling from a train, the Railways bear strict liability to compensate the victim’s family under the statutory framework, ensuring accountability and protection for passengers in cases of accidental death during train travel.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.