When Railway Authorities Fail To Establish That Claimant Fell Down From Running Train While Deboarding It, Presumption Has To Be Drawn In Claimant’s Favor: Gujarat High Court

The first appeal before the High Court was preferred by the appellant/original claimant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the impugned judgment and order passed in a Claim Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal/Delhi at RCT/Ahmedabad Bench.

The Single Bench of Justice Devan M. Desai said, “When respondents have failed to establish that deceased had fallen down from running train while deboarding train, a presumption is required to be drawn in favour of claimants that incident is an untoward incident. I am of the view that claimant has established the fact that the incident is an untoward incident. Section 124A of the Act provides compensation on account of untoward incident.”

Advocate Kunal M Shah represented the Petitioner while Advocate K M Parikh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The claimant-injured filed a claim application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for an untoward incident occurred due to incidentally falling down from a running train. The claim application was resisted by Railway Authorities by filing Written Statement and production of DRM report. Claimant filed examination-in-chief in support of the claim application but the same came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the claimant-appellant filed the Appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that because of the rush and push of passengers in the general compartment, claimant who was standing near the entrance gate lost balance and fell down accidentally. Resultantly, he was dragged with the train and lost his right leg above the knee and also sustained injuries on the other parts of the body.

On a perusal of the evidence and witnesses, the Bench noticed that the DRM report indicated that the Investigating Officer had mainly relied upon the investigation done by police, statement of Gateman, Station Superintendent, guard of the Train and the statement of Loco Pilot. However, those witnesses were not examined by Railway Authorities in rebutting the claimant’s contention. The Railway Authorities withheld the material evidence during the proceedings.

As per the Bench, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, a presumption has to be drawn that the incident which occurred on January 13, 2018, is an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2). It was further explained that sub-section (2) of Clause (c) of the Act envisages that an untoward incident means the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

Referring to Section 124A, the Bench observed, “The said provision mandates that when an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured, is entitled to maintain and action and recover damages in respect thereof and Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation. The exceptions are carved out in the proviso to Section 124A. However, in the present case, since the Railway Authorities could not prove its contention that the case falls within the exception laid down in Section 124A, claimants cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to recover compensation.”

Thus, holding that the Tribunal committed an error by rejecting the claim application, the Bench allowed the First Appeal.

Cause Title: Divakar Rambahadur v. Union of India (Case No.: R/First Appeal No. 67 of 2020)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Kunal M Shah, Mahesh B Shah, PJ Mehta

Respondent: Advocate KM Parikh

Click here to read/download Order