Mumbai Legal responsibility of the railways relies on the “no-fault concept” and due to this fact railway accident claims can’t be rejected on the bottom of “contributory negligence” of the deceased, the Bombay excessive court docket (HC) noticed just lately and allowed the declare of Balaghat district of Madhya Pradesh.
“The legal responsibility of railway relies on “no-fault concept,” stated single decide bench of justice MS Karnik whereas permitting accident declare filed by members of the family of 1 Roshanlal Tembhare, who had 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 court docket stated within the April 28 order which turned out there on Friday, Could 13, and reversed the January 23, 2019 order of the Nagpur Railway Accident Claims Tribunal, rejecting the household’s declare on the bottom that the deceased had died as a consequence of his personal negligent act – in attempting to alight from a working practice.
The incident in query happened on November 22, 2017, when the deceased was travelling from Raipur to Gondia by Howrah – Mumbai mail and died as a consequence of falling 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 as a consequence of his personal negligence and examined the guard of the practice in help 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, because the deceased died as a consequence of a fall whereas making an 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 the 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-judge bench stated it was not the Railway’s case that this can be a case of suicide or try and commit suicide. “On the highest, it’s a case of the deceased attempting to de-board a practice which had slowed down on the railway station leading to his dying which must be considered an ‘untoward incident’ entitling the sufferer to the compensation,” stated the court docket. “The case won’t fall underneath the proviso to Part 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (which lays down distinctive conditions during which compensation will not be payable to railway accident victims or their members of the family), merely on the plea of the negligence of the sufferer as a contributory issue.”