MUMBAI: Railway accident claims can’t be rejected on the grounds of negligence of the deceased, the Bombay excessive courtroom noticed whereas permitting the declare of a sufferer’s household.
“The legal responsibility of Railways is predicated on ‘no fault concept’,” mentioned the one choose bench of justice MS Karnik whereas permitting the accident declare filed by relations of 1 Roshanlal Tembhare, who died in a railway accident at Amgaon railway station in Gondia district of Vidarbha area.
“The precept of contributory negligence can’t be invoked in such case,” the courtroom mentioned within the April 28 order which turned accessible on Friday.
The courtroom reversed the January 23, 2019 order of the Nagpur Railway Accident Claims Tribunal, rejecting the household’s declare on the grounds that the person died attributable to his personal negligent act in making an attempt to alight from a working practice.
The incident in query came about on November 22, 2017, when Roshanlal Tembare was touring from Raipur to Gondia by Howrah–Mumbai mail and died attributable to fall from the working practice at Amgaon railway station.
After the household of the deceased filed the accident declare, the railways claimed that the deceased died attributable to his personal negligence and examined the guard of the practice in assist of their declare.
The guard claimed that he had seen the deceased leaping from the working practice because the practice slowed down at Amgaon railway station, although the practice had no scheduled halt there.
The tribunal accepted the railway’s stand and held that it was not an untoward accident, as the person died attributable to fall whereas making unsuccessful try to leap from the working practice which had no scheduled stoppage at Amgaon Railway Station.
Justice Karnik reversed the decision and directed the South East Central Railway to deposit with the tribunal a compensation of 8 lakh to be paid to the household of the deceased – 4 lakh to the mother and father of the deceased and 4 lakh to his minor daughter.
The only choose bench mentioned it was not the Railways’ case that it is a case of suicide or try and commit suicide. “On the highest, it’s a case of the deceased making an attempt to de-board a practice which had slowed down on the railway station leading to his demise which must be thought to be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling the sufferer to the compensation, ” mentioned the courtroom. “The case is not going to fall beneath the proviso to Part 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (which lays down distinctive conditions by which compensation isn’t payable to railway accident victims or their relations), merely on the plea of negligence of the sufferer as a contributory issue.”
,
