JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.
3. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs under Section 124A of the Railways Act in favor of the respondent for the death of her son who had alleged to have died due to “untoward incident” while he was traveling in a train from Delhi to Ballabhgarh. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:
On February 18, 1997, the deceased was traveling in a second class compartment of the train in question. Near Faridabad Railway Station, the deceased appeared to have fallen down from the train as a result of which he received injuries which proved to be fatal. For the death so caused, the respondent filed an application under Section 124A of the Railways Act before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. In the claim petition it was averred by the respondents that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train going from Delhi to Ballabhgarh; that because of huge rush of passengers in the train many passengers including the deceased were standing near the entrance door of the train; that when the train reached near Faridabad, the driver all of a sudden applied the brakes due to which there was a heavy jerk and the deceased who was standing near the entrance door of the train fell down and struck against the signal as a result of which he received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accident was alleged to have been caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the train by its driver. In the reply filed by the respondent it was admitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train and a railway ticket was recovered from him in Jama Talashi. The appellant, however, denied that the train had any jerk at that railway station and it was stated that the respondent was required to prove the facts stated in the application claiming compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed following issues: –
“1. Whether the incident, as alleged, is not covered under Section 123C of the Railways Act?
2. Relief?”
4. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties, the tribunal was of the view that since the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train and the death having been caused due to an untoward incident as defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act, the appellant was liable to pay compensation specified in the Schedule to the Act and, accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was directed to be paid to the respondents.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that firstly, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger in the train and, secondly, he fell down because of his own negligence as he was standing near the entrance door of the compartment and as such the appellant was not liable to pay compensation to the respondent. It is also contended that there was a difference between the railway ticket produced by the respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal and the ticket recovered from the person of the deceased on Jama Talashi inasmuch as the ticket produced during trial of the case before the tribunal bore a number different from the ticket recovered from the Jama Talashi and as such it could not be held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the trial court file but I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Though before the Railway Claims Tribunal the appellant had not produced any railway ticket alleged to have been recovered from the person of the deceased on Jama Talashi, however, along with this appeal, the appellant has filed a copy of the railway ticket stated to have been recovered on Jama Talashi of the deceased. A perusal of the railway ticket produced by the appellant along with the appeal shows that the ticket was for 18th February, 1997, that is, of the date when the deceased died of the accident; it was from New Delhi to Ballabhgarh and was in possession of the deceased. Even assuming that the ticket, copy of which has not been placed on record by the appellant, was recovered from the deceased, the same clearly shows that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train traveling from Delhi to Ballabhgarh and he died in an untoward incident at Faridabad which is a station en route. Moreover, the appellant having admitted in its reply before the tribunal that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, cannot now turn around and allege to the contrary. I am, therefore, unable to hold that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger in the train.
8. Under Section 123 of the Railways Act an “untoward incident” has been defined to include the “accidental falling” of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Under Section 124A of the Act when in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such “untoward incident”. It is thus clear that if a passenger dies because of an “untoward incident” while traveling in the train, his dependants are entitled to claim compensation from the railways and in the application claiming compensation they are not required to prove that “untoward incident” had happened because of wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. In the present case, it is amply proved by the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased had fallen down from the train and as a result of such falling from the train, he suffered injuries, which proved to be fatal. An “untoward incident”, as already mentioned above, includes the “accidental falling” of any passenger from a train. It is thus clear that the deceased had died because of the injuries suffered due to his accidentally falling while traveling from New Delhi to Faridabad. The only ground on which the railway could avoid its liability was that the deceased had suffered injuries because of his own criminal act. It was for the railways to prove that the deceased had suffered injuries because of his own criminal act. Neither it is so pleaded in its reply by the appellant nor any witness has been produced by the appellant before the tribunal to prove that the deceased was either traveling on the foot board or had committed any criminal act which might have resulted in the injuries because of which he died. No evidence having been produced to prove such a criminal act, in my opinion, the railway administration could not escape its liability to pay compensation in terms of section 124A of the Act.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.