Proof Of Negligence Is Not Required In Case Of Strict Liability: Bombay HC Awards Compensation In Railway Accident Case

While quashing the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in the case of death of a deceased passenger in an untoward accident during travel, the Bombay High Court held the appellants (claimants) entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lacs along with interest @6.00%p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its realization.

Referring to a decision in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaykumar and others [ (2008) SCC 527], Single Judge Bench of Justice M.S Jawalkar observed that “Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no-fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where the principle of strict liability applies, proof of negligence is not required. Once the initial burden is discharged, it is the strict liability of the railway to pay compensation. As such, I am satisfied that claimants are entitled to compensation as prayed for”.

Advocate N. R. Mankar appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Neerja Choube appeared for the Respondents.

The brief facts of the case were that the deceased (Dilip) while coming to Gangakhed Railway Station along with his son (Avinash), obtained one railway ticket. After boarding his father on the train, Avinash left. In the meanwhile, the deceased accidentally fell in the untoward incident between the platform and the running train and came under the wheels of the said running train. During his treatment in the Government Hospital, the deceased died. Accordingly, the Railway Claims Tribunal was approached contending that the deceased died due to an untoward incident and that he was travelling from the train as a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket. The respondent railway opposed the claim application on the ground that no railway ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased, and it was contended the present was a case of self-inflicted injury due to the negligent act of the deceased. The tribunal held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the said accident does not come within the purview and meaning of an “untoward” incident, but it is sheer negligence and therefore, it amounts to self-inflicted injury.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the initial burden has been discharged by the claimants in respect of the purchase of a journey ticket by filing an affidavit of the son of the deceased.

While observing that there is no case of self-inflicted injury and that there must be an intention to cause injury to oneself, the Bench stated that the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in holding it as a self-inflicted injury and denied the claim of the appellants.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed the respondent (Union of India) to pay the amount of compensation within three months.

Cause Title: Meenabai and Ors. v. Union of India

Click here to read/download the Judgment