Deboarding From Slow Moving Train After Realizing Mistake Is Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Bombay HC Directs Railway To Pay Compensation
The Bombay High Court has observed that the act of deboarding from a slow-moving train could not be said to be a criminal act and the injury sustained could not be a self-inflicted injury.
The Bench of Justice G.A. Sanap observed, “In my view, the act of deboarding the train in such a situation could not be said to be a criminal act, and the injury sustained in such an act could not be said to be a self-inflicted injury. At the most, such an act could be termed as a rash and negligent act. The option of pulling the chain to stop the train was available to the injured. The injured, instead of pulling the chain, made an attempt to deboard the train at the platform. The Guard of the train has categorically stated that, at the time of the incident, the train was moving at a slow speed. It is necessary to state that the passenger in the factual situation of this case, after realizing his mistake, is bound to suffer anxious moments.”
Advocate S.G. Barbate appeared for the Petitioners whereas CGC Shivakumar appeared for the Respondents.
On August 13, 2015, the Appellant herein mistakenly boarded the wrong train and after boarding, in order to deboard, he came near to the gate of the train. The train was moving at a slow speed. There was a sudden jerk to the train, and, therefore, he fell, and his legs were crushed under the wheel. It is stated that he was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket.
The present appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (“the Act of 1987”), challenging the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, where the claim of the Appellant for compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident was dismissed. The injured died during the pendency of the appeal. The present appellants are his legal heirs.
The Court said, “The injured had purchased the ticket to go to Balaghat from Gondia. Due to a sheer mistake, he boarded the wrong train. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the train in question was proceeding in the opposite direction, in the backdrop of the above definition, it could not be said that the injured was a passenger of the said train without a ticket.”
While discussing the question of whether the injury sustained by the injured was in an untoward incident or not, the Court held that the passenger, undergoing an anxious moment, can commit a mistake and such a mistake could be said to be a mere error of judgment.
“The liability is based on ‘no fault theory’. The rash and negligent act cannot be equated with a criminal act or an act resulting into a self-inflicted injury. In my view, therefore, learned Member of the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim. Learned Member has failed to properly appreciate the evidence. The injury sustained by the injured has been proved to be in an untoward incident, as understood by Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989.”, the Court concluded.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment/order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal and directed Railways to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- towards compensation to the Appellants.
Cause Title: Ashok and Ors. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:6332)
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocate S.G. Barbate
Respondent: Advocate N.P. Lambat
