The Orissa High Court has reinforced that the Railways’ liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 is strict and unconditional when it comes to accidental falls from trains, classifying such incidents as “untoward incidents”.
Key Aspects of the Judgment-
Strict Liability: Once an accidental fall from a train is established, the Railways can’t deny compensation, barring explicit exceptions like suicide or criminal acts (Section 124A).
Bona Fide Passenger: Recovery of a valid ticket supports the deceased being a bona fide passenger, shifting burden to Railways to prove otherwise.
Untoward Incident Defined: Section 123(c)(2) includes accidental falls from trains; being run over post-fall doesn’t alter incident classification.
Compensation Awarded: Orissa High Court directed Railways to pay ₹8,00,000 with 6% annual interest in a recent case (Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of India).
Contextual Considerations-
No-Fault Liability: Railways Act embodies no-fault liability for such accidents, prioritizing victim compensation.
Precedents: Rulings like Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (2008) and Rina Devi (2019) support liberal interpretation for victim welfare.
Evidence Matters: Official records like inquest reports and ticket recovery are critical in establishing claims.
Implications-
Railway Accountability: Decisions underscore Railways’ responsibility towards passengers in accidents.
Beneficial Legislation: Courts interpret laws like Section 124A beneficially for victims/dependents.
The Orissa High Court emphasized that under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railways bears strict and unconditional liability for compensation in cases of accidental falls from trains, categorized as untoward incidents. Once such an incident is proved, compensation cannot be denied, reflecting a no-fault liability framework prioritizing victim welfare, as seen in the court’s directive for Railways to pay ₹8,00,000 with interest in a recent case.
