IN FAO 237 OF 2021 - DEL HC- Merely because the body of the deceased was found cut into halves would not ipso facto result in an assumption that the incident was not on account of accidental fall, and thus not covered by the definition of ‘untoward incident’: Delhi High Court remands matter back to Railway Tribunal for awarding compensation to accident victim
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri [05-07-2023]

Read More: Rekha v Union of India

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 6, 2023: Allowingan appeal filed by the mother of aman who died after falling from a moving train following which his body was decapitated on the railway tracks, the Delhi High Court hasset aside an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal which had dismissed the claim application after holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the incident could be characterized as an ‘untoward incident’as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohristated that insofar as the factum of recovery of the journey ticket from the deceased was concerned, it was not in dispute that the same was verified and found to be validly issued, thus the Tribunal had erred in holding that the deceased was not abonafide passenger.

The Bench further stated that merely because the body of the deceased was found cut into halves would not ipso facto result in an assumption that the incident was not on account of accidental fall, and thus not covered by the definition of ‘untoward incident’. The reasoning given in the DRM report and adopted by the Tribunal was stated to be flawed.

In the matter at hand, the deceased had undertaken a train journey on 19.06.2018 from AsawatiRailway Station to Ghaziabad Railway Station. He was returning to his village Bhudabasand for the said purpose, had boarded an EMU train from AsawatiRailway Station after purchasing a journey ticket. On account of sudden jerk and push of the crowd, the deceased accidentally fell from the train and died at the spot.

The Tribunal had held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and rejected the contention that the incident could becharacterised as an ‘untoward incident’.

Further, the Bench dealt with the issue whether the incident in question could be stated to have been an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (Act of 1989) and perused the panchayatnama, which stated that the death of the deceased occurred due to him being run over by a train. “As per the site-plan, the head of the deceased was found decapitated from the body at UP- line of platform No.4, and one of his hands was found at a distance of 4 ft from the body.As per the DRM Report, part of the body of deceased was found lying at the railway track from which train goes to Mathura and not Delhi. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the incident. ”

It was concluded that the incident was a result of the deceased being run over by a train even though, as per material available on the record, no such information was conveyed by the train driver to the Station Master. “A perusal of the site-plan further shows that the railway tracks for trains coming from and going towards Delhi are adjacent to each other. ”

In view thereof, the Court was of the view that the deceased was held to be a bonafide passenger and the incident in question an ‘untoward incident’. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding compensation in terms of the Act of 1989.