Negligence while boarding or de-boarding a train does not defeat statutory compensation liability.

The appellant, mother of Rakesh, challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of her claim for compensation arising from her son’s death on 3 July 2011.

Rakesh was allegedly travelling from Jind to Bahadurgarh in passenger train No. 2DJJ with railway ticket No. 37827565 when, due to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, he fell from the moving train and sustained fatal injuries.

The incident was reported to the GRP, and a post-mortem examination was conducted.

The railway ticket was recovered from the deceased.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that Rakesh was not proved to be a bona fide passenger, that he had allegedly attempted to board the moving train from the off-side, and that the appellant was not the sole dependent because the deceased’s father had not been impleaded.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger entitled to claim compensation under Sections 123(b), 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the deceased’s death, allegedly caused by falling from or attempting to board a moving train, constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

Whether the appellant’s claim could be dismissed merely because the deceased’s father was not impleaded as a claimant.

What compensation and interest were payable to the appellant.

Section 124-A of the Railways Act imposes statutory no-fault liability on the Railways for death or injury resulting from an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2), subject only to the statutory exceptions.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the claimant must initially establish bona fide passenger status, after which the evidentiary burden shifts to the Railways; mere absence of a ticket is not conclusive, and negligence in boarding or de-boarding does not amount to a “self-inflicted injury” unless the statutory exception is otherwise established.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, and Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, for the beneficial and strict-liability character of Section 124-A.

Regarding quantum, Rina Devi and Union of India v. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410, require application of the compensation applicable on the date of the accident with reasonable interest, subject to the claimant receiving the higher amount where the statutory amount prevailing on the date of award is greater.

The Court held that the recovery of railway ticket No. 37827565 from the deceased supported his status as a bona fide passenger.

The Tribunal’s inference that the ticket had been planted was based on conjecture, and the fact that it was issued for two adults, without particulars of the other passenger, did not invalidate it.

The Railways produced no eye-witness to prove that Rakesh deliberately attempted to board the train from the off-side; the Guard’s account was based on information received from passengers.

Further, the railway records contained a discrepancy regarding the train number involved.

Even assuming negligent boarding, Rina Devi establishes that negligence or contributory negligence does not defeat a claim under the no-fault statutory scheme unless the conduct falls within the specific statutory exceptions.

The post-mortem and contemporaneous railway and police records supported the conclusion that death resulted from injuries connected with the train or railway track, and the matter was to be assessed on a preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

Finally, the appellant, as the deceased’s mother, fell within the statutory category of parent; non-impleadment of the father could at most require apportionment of compensation and could not justify dismissal of the entire claim.

The Court held that Rakesh was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an untoward incident covered by Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act.

The appellant was awarded ₹4,00,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization, or ₹8,00,000, whichever was higher, in accordance with Rina Devi and Radha Yadav.

The Railways were directed to deposit the amount before the Tribunal within three months of receiving the certified judgment; failure to do so would attract interest at 12% per annum from expiry of that period until realization.