The Calcutta High Court has held that an accidental fall suffered while attempting to de-board a train stopped at a signal halt constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court clarified that alleged negligence or recklessness on the part of a passenger does not convert the event into a "self-inflicted injury" so as to deny statutory compensation.

While allowing an appeal, the Bench set aside a 2018 dismissal order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. The Court directed the Railway administration to pay ₹4,00,000 with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim case, or ₹8,00,000, whichever is higher.

A Single Bench of Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury observed, “…from the Judicial decisions as well as from the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act it will be clear that mere negligence of the passenger while travelling in a train is no ground to deny the compensation…the victim attempted to get down from the train when the train was standing and her husband already got down from the train thus in such circumstances she cannot be faulted for attempting to get down from the train although the train did not reach the platform”.

“In the facts and circumstances this Court is of the view that the appellant has been able to establish that death of his wife from accident dated 21-01-2012 is an untoward incident under Section 123(2) of Railway Act 1989. Thus the appellant is entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Act. Thus the appellant is entitled to the relief as prayed for…”, the Bench said.

Advocate Navin Mittal appeared for the appellant and Advocate Debjani Ghosha appeared for the respondent.

The case pertained to an incident on January 21, 2012, when the appellant, his wife Suparna Mondal, and their two children were travelling from Jhargram to Howrah on a valid ticket. When the express train halted due to a red signal near Uluberia station, the husband and two children de-boarded. As Suparna attempted to get down, the train suddenly started moving, causing her to fall and suffer severe head injuries. She succumbed to her injuries on March 5, 2012, at Howrah General Hospital.

The Railway Claims Tribunal had rejected the claim application, relying on the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) enquiry report which alleged that the victim attempted to get down from a running train out of her own negligence, meaning the Railways was not liable. Additionally, the Railways argued that the claimant suppressed facts and failed to recover a physical ticket from the deceased victim.

Therefore, the Bench observed that both the police investigation under Section 174 CrPC and the RPF enquiry report unequivocally established that the victim fell from the train. Analyzing Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench stated that strict concepts of contributory negligence cannot be imported into a "no-fault theory" compensation regime. The Court held that a "self-inflicted injury" requires an explicit intention to inflict harm, which cannot be equated with mere negligence.

The Court noted that under normal circumstances, a passenger is expected to alight only at a railway platform. However, since the train had stopped and her family members had already stepped down, the deceased could not be faulted for attempting to de-board, even if the halt was prior to the station platform.

On the issue of non-recovery of the physical journey ticket from the victim's body, the Court highlighted that the deceased was travelling alongside her husband, meaning the ticket could easily have been in his possession. The Bench further remarked that once a journey is completed, there is generally no reason for a passenger to preserve a general railway ticket.

Cause Title: Sukumar Mondal v. Union of India, General Manager, South Eastern Railway F.M.A. 104 of 2021

Appearances:

Appellant: Navin Mittal, Advocate.

Respondent: Debjani Ghosha, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: