Plea Of Negligence By Victim Not Available To Railways As Their Liability Is Based On The Principle Of Strict Liability: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the liability of the Railway Administration is based on the ‘principle of strict liability’ and therefore, a plea of ‘negligence of the victim’ is not available to the Railway Administration.
The Court allowed an appeal challenging the findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), which had earlier dismissed the Appellant’s claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (the Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain reiterated, “The liability of the Railway Administration is based on the ‘principle of strict liability’. Plea of ‘no fault of railways’ or ‘negligence of the victim’ is not available to the Railway Administration.”
Advocate S.R. Chaudhary appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Arihant Goyal represented the Respondent.
According to the pleadings, the Appellant was travelling from Darbhanga to Jagadhri. When the train reached near Jagadhri Railway Station, the Appellant fell due to the push of passengers. The fall caused partial amputation of his right foot, implantation of an iron rod in his left arm, and a head injury.
The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the Appellant had failed to prove he was a bona fide passenger, stating that no evidence was produced to show possession of a valid train ticket. However, the Appellant was able to produce a ticket issued to him for the journey from Darbhanga to Jagadhri.
The High Court referred to Section 124A of the Act which deals with compensation for untoward incidents, introduced through the Railway (Amendment) Act, 28 of 1994. The Bench noted that the doctrine of strict liability was applied to adjudicate the claims arising out of Section 124A of the Act by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008), wherein the plea of ‘no fault on part of the railways’ was rejected while observing, “Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.”
The Court pointed out that the exceptions carved out under the proviso attached to Section 124A were interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Jameela v. Union of India (2010) which explained the meaning of the expression “his own criminal act”
The Court found that the injuries sustained by the Appellant due to the fall from the train were covered under the definition of "untoward incident" as per Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The claim did not fall within any of the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A.
Consequently, the Court held, “The accident is of the year 2013. Thus, the compensation awarded to the appellant shall be as per Part I of the Schedule appended to the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 prior to amendment dated 1st of January, 2017 i.e. Rs.4.00 lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum payable for the period from the date of application till the date of actual realization.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Joginder Thakur v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:149107)