Strict Liability Applies to Untoward Rail Incidents Absent Proof of Statutory Exceptions or Self-Inflicted Injury

On 09.03.2017, Amrendra Sharma ("the deceased") was traveling from Haridwar to Patna via Upasna Express.

He allegedly fell from the train at KM No. 1367/2 due to a jerk and died at the spot.

A ticket (No. H-28434390) was recovered during inquest proceedings and verified by the Chief Booking Supervisor.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 21.05.2019, ruling the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the event was not an "untoward incident".

A subsequent review application was also dismissed on 20.12.2019.

The appellants challenged these orders before the Delhi High Court.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.

Whether the incident qualifies as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court applied Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines "untoward incident" specifically as the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

It relied on the principle from Union of India v. Rina Devi, establishing that once a ticket is recovered and verified, the initial burden of proof shifts to the Railways to rebut the passenger's bona fide status.

Furthermore, relying on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, the Court applied the doctrine of strict liability under Section 124A, noting that contributory negligence is not a defense unless it falls under specific exceptions like suicide or self-inflicted injury.

The Court found that the recovery of a valid ticket, duly verified by the Station Booking Supervisor, discharged the claimants' initial burden of proving the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

The respondent failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut this.

Regarding the nature of the incident, the Station Master’s diary and the Keyman’s testimony confirmed the body was found on the tracks.

The Court rejected the Tribunal's characterization of the death as a "self-inflicted injury," noting there was no evidence of the deceased being "run over" by another train.

Under the principle of strict liability, even if the deceased was negligent, such negligence does not exempt the Railways from liability unless it constitutes intentional self-harm.

The Court emphasized that the Railways Act is beneficial legislation requiring a pragmatic, rather than hyper-technical, interpretation.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation within two months.

The appeal was allowed.