Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay held that a passenger standing near the doorway of an overcrowded train and falling from the same remains a victim of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers.

‘Lost balance’

• On June 4, 2014, Archana Biswas, the complainant’s daughter, started her journey from Samudragarh to Ambika Kalna by a local train in the East Bardhaman district of West Bengal.
• The claim stated that due to severe overcrowding and a sudden jerk of the train near Kalna railway station, her daughter lost balance, fell from the running train and succumbed to the injuries at the place of occurrence.
• A case was registered immediately thereafter on June 4, 2014.
• The Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata bench on August 25, 2020, rejected the claim of the complainant filed under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
• The complainant had then approached the Calcutta High Court.

‘Bona fide passenger’

The Calcutta High Court observed that the train ticket was recovered from the body of the victim, and the argument that the same was not produced before the tribunal has been rejected by the court on the ground that once the ticket became evidence through official records, its existence would not vanish merely because it was not physically produced.

The court was of the view that it had been successfully established by the evidence and documents produced that the victim was travelling as a ‘bona fide passenger’ who fell from a running train and sustained fatal injuries.

It was also noted by the court that the railway administration had produced no material that suggested “suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, insanity”, or any instance which fell within the exceptions given in Section 124A of the Railways Act.

The court held that the statutory expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” does not cease to operate only because the victim was positioned near the door of the compartment.

It was stated by the court that Section 124A (compensation for untoward incidents) of the Railways Act embodied a principle of strict liability; once it was established that the victim was a bona fide passenger and death resulted from an “untoward incident”, compensation would follow as a legal consequence, and that proof of negligence was not a mandatory condition.

The court finally ruled that the incident involving the victim indeed fit inside the description of “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) (definitions related to accidents and untoward incidents) of the Railways Act and that the administration had not succeeded in establishing any exceptions that could be applied to the case.

Accordingly, the court awarded a compensation of Rs 8 lakh with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the tribunal’s order till actual payment; the amount was decided keeping in mind the accident and that the claim had been pending for a considerable period

The railway administration was directed to release the amount within 12 weeks from the date of communication of the judgment.

‘Valid ticket’

Advocate Navin Mittal, appearing on behalf of the complainant, based his contentions on the seizure list, railway records and GRPS documents, all of which acknowledged possession of a valid second-class ticket.

It was also stated that the railway administration itself, through its investigative materials, did not dispute the recovery of the ticket.

‘Leaning outside train’

Advocate Vikas Bansal, appearing on behalf of the authorities, urged that no railway ticket was produced before the tribunal and that the names of witnesses appearing in certain documents differ from those appearing elsewhere.

The counsel also submitted that the post-mortem report did not expressly state that the victim fell from the train. It was further contended that there also existed doubt regarding territorial jurisdiction.

It was also argued that the victim was standing near the door of the compartment and leaning outside the train before the fall.