NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

Raeesa Begum Vs. Union of India - (High Court of Bombay) (17 Jan 2020)

Railway cannot deny liability to pay amount of compensation, even if passenger died or injured due to his own negligence

MANU/MH/0106/2020

Civil

In present case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, deceased fell down due to his own negligence and, therefore, claimant is not entitled for compensation in view of the proviso contained in Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989. The Appellant submitted that, there is no dispute about the death of deceased. All the material documents show that deceased was travelling with a valid ticket. Deceased fell down from running train due to push of the door as he was standing behind the door. It was not his negligence and, therefore, the Appellant is entitled for compensation.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jameela and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI), has held that assuming that deceased fell down from the train due to his own negligence, it is not a criminal act so as to attract clause (c) of proviso to section 124-A of the Railway Act and, therefore, the Railway/Union of India is liable to pay amount of compensation.

In the case of Rina Devi, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "death or injury in course of boarding or de-boarding train will be "untoward incident". Victim will be entitled to compensation and will not fall under proviso to Section 124A merely on plea of negligence of victim as contributing factor." Section 124-A is very clear.

In view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, even the passenger died or injured due to his own negligence then also Railway cannot deny the liability to pay the amount of compensation. In view of the undisputed facts that, the deceased was travelling by train having a valid train ticket. He died in railway accident, therefore, the Appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed.

Relevant : Jameela and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) MANU/SC/0656/2010; Union of India (UOI) vs. Rina Devi MANU/SC/0522/2018

Tags : COMPENSATION   PAYMENT   LIABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved