Title: Parvati Manikrao Bomble and Ors. v. UoI
Decided on: 18.08.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.23/2020
CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Facts of the Case
The case revolves around a tragic incident that occurred on January 12, 2015, involving the unfortunate death of Manik s/o Krishnurao Bomble. The deceased had purchased a railway ticket for a passenger train journey from Partur to Manwat Road, intending to visit his relatives. After meeting his relatives, he returned to the Partur Railway Station to board a train back to Manwat Road. As the train approached Manwat Road Railway Station, he attempted to get down but tragically fell from the moving train, suffering fatal injuries.
The claimants, who were the dependents of the deceased, sought compensation for the incident, while the railway authority contested the claim by asserting that the incident did not qualify as an untoward incident and that the deceased was not a genuine passenger.
Issues:
- Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train
- Whether his death resulted from an “untoward incident” as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act.
The claimants, who were the dependents of the deceased, sought compensation for the incident, while the railway authority contested the claim by asserting that the incident did not qualify as an untoward incident and that the deceased was not a genuine passenger.
Contentions:
The claimants contended that the deceased had a valid railway ticket from Partur to Manwat Road, which established his status as a bonafide passenger. They argued that the railway had failed to present any evidence indicating that the deceased was not a passenger or that he was not involved in an untoward incident. The claimants further claimed that the railway’s negligence had led to the incident, making them liable to provide compensation.
The railway authority, on the other hand, maintained that the appellant has failed to establish that the deceased was boarded on the train and the death of the deceased was occurred due to an accidental fall amounting to an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railway Act and it is also rightly taken into consideration that the place of residence of the deceased is not too far away from the place of incidence. They emphasized that the deceased’s village was situated close to Manwat Road Railway Station, suggesting that he might have been moving near the scene of the incident without being a legitimate passenger.
Decision
After carefully considering the presented arguments and the available evidence, the appellate court ruled in favour of the claimants (appellants) and granted them compensation. The court found that the deceased was indeed a bonafide passenger as evidenced by the valid railway ticket recovered from his body. Although the specific train he boarded was not definitively established, the court noted that the distance between Partur and Manwat Road made it plausible that he was on a train during the incident.
The court highlighted that the railway had failed to provide any substantial evidence contradicting the claimants’ position. Additionally, they referenced information from the police and crime reports, along with the recovered railway ticket, which strongly indicated that the deceased was indeed a passenger who tragically fell from the train while deboarding. The court applied a liberal interpretation in line with beneficial or welfare statutes, siding with the claimants to provide compensation.
In conclusion, the appellate court’s decision overturned the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, quashing their dismissal of the claim. The court acknowledged the deceased as a bonafide passenger who suffered an untoward incident during travel and awarded the claimants a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000. The railway authority was directed to deposit the compensation with the tribunal within a specified timeframe for further distribution to the claimants. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of considering the broader context and welfare of individuals in cases involving railway incidents.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law
