Catering Worker Crossing Train Compartments Not Self-Inflicted Injury To Deprive Bona Fide Passenger Status: Gujarat High Court
Railway Claims Tribunal had held outsourced pantry car worker a deemed railway servant despite lapsed identity card; the Court affirming the observations, rejected self-inflicted injury plea as impermissible under no-fault liability regime of Section 124-A Railways Act.
Justice J.C. Doshi, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that a catering worker crossing from one compartment to another in a running train cannot be treated as self-inflicted injury to deny compensation under the no-fault liability regime of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, holding that raising such a plea amounts to invoking contributory negligence, which is impermissible under the no-fault framework.
The Court further held that the Railway administration failed to bring the case within the statutory exceptions by disproving the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, and accordingly upheld the compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal to the dependants of the deceased pantry car worker.
The Tribunal had found, and the High Court affirmed, that the worker's expired identity card did not disqualify him from being treated as a deemed railway servant, since the non-renewal was attributable to the catering agency's omission and not to any fault of the worker.
Justice J.C. Doshi observed, “The theory that the deceased as hawker or waiter serving under the catering agency inflicted self-injury, as without taking sufficient care and caution, tried to jump or cross from one compartment to another compartment in running railway, cannot be accepted on the ground that raising of such plea amount to contributory negligence, is not permissible under the concept of “no fault” liability.…the learned Railway administration has failed to bring the case within the four corners that the deceased was not a ‘bonafide passenger’”.
Advocate Krishna G. Rawal appeared for the appellant and Advocate Kunal M. Shah appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the deceased, was working as an authorised vendor and waiter for M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd., which held a catering contract with Western Railway from March 2015 to March 2020. On the intervening night of June 29-29, 2018, while the train was running near Chamaraj Railway Station, the deceased lost his balance due to a sudden jerk while crossing compartments and fell from the running train, sustaining fatal injuries.
His widow filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation. The Union of India challenged the award contending that the deceased's ID card had expired on December 18, 2017, making him unauthorised to travel, and that moving between compartments in a running train amounted to self-inflicted injury.
In the judgment, the Court noted the Tribunal’s categorical observations that, “…it is just and fair to hold that deceased catering waiter was at the relevant time was a deemed Railway servant to whom a clear travelling authority has been given by Railways through our sourced contractual agency for doing on board catering work in Railway trains”.
“The fact that Identity Card of the deceased waiter had expired will not in any way unsettle the status of a deemed Railway servant on duty for deceased simply because his Identity Card had not been renewed by the catering agency M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd, due to an act of omission…Further in the instant case no officials of Railway on supervisory check have detected deceased being on catering duty on board without a duly renewed identity Card. Thus, due to not renewing Identity Card by catering agency M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd. it is not just and fair to treat the poor waiter who in effect was working under contractual arrangement with the Railway as a deemed Railway servant, as unauthorised person on board”, the Tribunal had further noted.
The High Court rejected both contentions and noted Railway Tribunal’s observations on the self-inflicted injury plea, and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rina Devi 2019 (3) SCC 572, which disapproved the Bombay High Court's application of this concept to hawkers and held that contributory negligence cannot be invoked against a no-fault liability claim.
“The theory that the deceased as hawker or waiter serving under the catering agency inflicted self-injury, as without taking sufficient care and caution, tried to jump or cross from one compartment to another compartment in running railway, cannot be accepted on the ground that raising of such plea amount to contributory negligence, is not permissible under the concept of ‘no fault’ liability”, the Tribunal had said.
“…the catering work though ancillary in nature is very vital for business of transporting of passengers by Railways. It is known fact that previously catering work on behalf of Railways used to done by the departmental staff. Thus, in ultimate analysis factum of the matter is that outsourced catering work being done by the contractual staff is no different from the work done previously by Railway staff. This work is same and similar to current work now done on out sourced basis under a proper authorisation from Indian Railways. The work nature, content and work environment being same and there being clear authorisation from Indian Railways for such work under contractual arrangement. Accordingly the outsourced catering contractual staff stand on the same footings as a Railways servant on duty”, the Tribunal had noted.
The appeal was dismissed and the Railway Claims Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded compensation forthwith.
Cause Title: Union of India v. Meenadevi W/o Hariprasad Gupta and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:37610)
Appearances:
Appellant: Krishna G. Rawal, Advocate
Respondents: Kunal M. Shah and P.J. Mehta, Advocates.