LexJAMEELA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
b,:"'''·::e:J0, '"t
~on': cUNION OF.LINDIAu::
.. r ::~. ·•JJ't:
c~·ni.:o · ;1Fi'J,Y(Civil Appeal' Novr1!1
184irof~2003)1sr.,·,:
'
"rNi :'J;;, .1:_~"r''" "G'-'-JA'UG 'sfri~? i£:·1: 011:::•ibn:-. ·::. • ·'·c
srl.1 r·i~ q'B9!~:~ t.i~t-i(!·/·{ ~'''-.:·.
~~)~µ~Jc-··· ';.)(':·)·'9~19t
~fj~)rr1;:;ri~::, f'rl;,
Jsn r •,.;ii{AFTAB;AliJAM AND<'RfM. "l.LODHJ6.';;'-:.l.'.l~l·:rr L•"
.c::h~i '.:~E'.,-"J y ... ,J(i ~ C"~J:, ·:S,r:~· ·.J·:2-~rh\1 rpi·')c111o;·i~11;ii £'4~-d -''7U i·:i -0'\.
Rai1wayi'fi/ct;c1ga9: ,,'., .. ·' ),.,"". f!K•r.• 1 ::s- • ' '
;~F
q';{.~s!8i,CWJ':,r~~~qes.JrPL!f.J,e~/f;(~f!~irb:f1JeJ:<i(aµsf!~:;;(a)-!to ;{f?) of
~'J~d]rf?1Yi~~,{q f,h,,~i ~:f!iP {~~gg<?,'!f?;? l?.<2(~,)riby1J<!_{-wf1.~ifu,s{ifjecj,:,
"b h.g(</!.liffl tf i,I?.t, _th,e,,r cfft)8l'!1 Pf :'(:(g,~n:_i rJ\'.~.~: 1 f!_ye; to:.•?P: ;l/n tovyar<j~'
~-q[q.~R! a,1n,qr..[~!JJ/{y1 pfctfJf! q,e,<jf~J3,~f(,cj .'«?~ ~T!(i,t(e,qJp Rs. 2_;1,acs.,
Et
f:i~!''f'!Y.,::-~P5{~e(Jfii((fqrppe,Q{>_at!P,(I) ·84.!~s;b1199p .. :,,,. · _- ,~ v
_; '"'
1•) ws.:t'ill-Ji.; J>rtWis'ot.rcJ'i2.1' ;&ilfrli~til· ~lifiJ '1E~l3iali1f1iL' • Y 'i .. ·'~·''.
;:)n.:~21rna~r c1
lfi~1qq~-:. +::1 d
~Jvt•:.~l.\ 11
The victim was traveling on a valid ticket by train. He
fell9d6Wn' lr6l'rlltfV~ train and died. His wife and children ·
F filed a claim for compensation for the death of the victim
under the Railways Act, 1989. The tribunal held that the
death of the victim was due to an 'untoward incident' as
defined under Section 123 of the Act and awarded the
compensation of Rs.2,00,000 which was maximum
G compensation in a death case under the Railway
Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The High Court
held that the incident occurred due to negligence of the
victim and set aside the order of the tribunal. The instant
appeal was filed by the claimants challenging the order
H of the High Court.
524
JAMEELA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
525
'
Allowing the appeal, the Court
A
· HELD: 1:1 • .The High Court erred in coming to the
conclusion that the victim-deceased 'died due to his own
negligence and thus.the claimants were not entitled to
any compensation un'der section .124-A of the· Railways
8
Act, 1989. The case. of the RaHway Administration that the
victim was stan'ding at ttie' open door of the train
compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell
down was entirely based 011 s'peculation. There was,
admittedly, no eye-witness of the fall of the deceased from
the train and, therefore, there was absolutely no evide'nce
C
to supp'ort the case of the Railway that the accident took
place in the manner suggested by it. Moreover, even if it
were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train
to his death due to his own negligence, it would not have
a·ny effect on the compensation payable under section D
124-A of the Act. [Para 5] [529-D-F]
· ·
··
·
'
·.
1.2. It was not denied by the Railway that the victim
fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on
a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a "passenger" for
E
the purpose of· section 124-A as clarified by the
Explanation. Under section 124-A, the.liability to pay
compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect
or default on the part of the Ra!lway Administration. But
the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay
F
any compensation in case the death of the passenger or
injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons
enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section
124-A, such as, suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury
or his own criminal act or any act committed by him in a G
state of intoxication .. or due to insanity or natural cause
or disease; In the instant case, it was not the case of
Railway that the victim died due to any of the reasons
enumerated in clauses {a) to (e). His falling down from the
train was, thus, clearly accidental. (Paras 7, 8] (531-D-G]
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201·0] 10 S.C.R.
A
1.3. The manner in which the accident is sought to
be reconstructed by the Railway that the deceased was
standing at the open door of the train compartment from
where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as
negligence. Negligence of this kind 'which is not very
B uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a
criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to
section 124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c)
must have an element of malicious intent orExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.