Untoward incident and applicability of damages

Untoward incident and applicability of damages written by Diksha Sharma student of Government Law College, Mumbai

Sarla & Ors vs Union of India

Facts:

The death of the deceased eventuated on account of negligence performed by him while boarding a moving train. The deceased attempted boarding a running train, which was moving as per the schedule, inevitably fell from the platform, which resulted in the amputation of both his legs and eventually, lost his life. The Railway tribunal denied compensation claims demanded by the appellants on behalf of the deceased. The case was then adjudged in the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to damages?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 123(c), Railways Act, 1989 – definition of untoward incident
• Section 124- A, Railways Act, 1989 – compensation on account of untoward incident
• Section 154, Railways Act, 1989 – endangering the safety of persons traveling by railway, by rash or negligent act or omission

Appellants’ Contention:

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the fall from the compartment of the train was an accident, therefore, it comes under the ambit of Section 123(c). The decision relied upon by the learned tribunal in cases of Jamirul Nisha & Anr v Union of India and Bimla Devi & Anr. Vs Union of India is inapplicable. In the former judgment, the evidence submitted by the co-passenger was contradictory to the incident laid down, which is not similar to the present case. Whereas, the deceased, in the latter judgment, was getting off from the running train. The learned counsel prayed for a reward of damages.

Respondents’ Contention:

The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that any attempt to board a running train by the deceased was a foolish act and invited fatal injuries for himself. It was further added that if a passenger boarded a running train itself amounts to a criminal act and is punishable under the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, it was prayed that the appellant’s claim should be dismissed.

Observation of the court:

The court was of the view that the learned tribunal had erred in counting the provision of Section 124-A for the aforesaid case. Though the provision deals with a self-inflicted injury, it cannot be said that an abrupt and accidental fall from the train was a self-infliction. As per Apex Court in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) and Jameela (supra), falling from the train due to one’s negligence doesn’t come within the exception provided in Section 124-A, to deny compensation. The submission made by the respondent counsel that the act was criminal is incorrect because it cannot be interpreted if an act of boarding the train could be criminal and intentional. Hence, the provision of Section 154 is misplaced and not applicable.

Judgment:

The court directed to award the petitioners’ legal heirs with Rs.4 lakh along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the compensation, till the date of deposit within 12 weeks from the day of given judgment.