The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified the scope of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, holding that compensation for death under the provision is not payable if the victim was trespassing on railway tracks. The Court distinguished between untoward incidents and self-inflicted injuries, emphasizing that strict liability does not extend to cases where the deceased was not a victim of an accident involving the train in which they were travelling.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondents, legal heirs of late Mr. Mathai, filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, seeking compensation for his death. Mr. Mathai, an octogenarian, died on 29.03.2019 while travelling from Ernakulam to Kannur in the Maveli Express (Train No. 16604). The respondents alleged that he fell from the train near Vishupadam, Tirur, sustaining fatal injuries. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the application. Aggrieved by this order, the Union of India filed this appeal.
Key Facts
28.03.2019: The deceased, Mr. Mathai, boarded the Maveli Express from Ernakulam to Kannur with his son, the 4th respondent. Both had reserved berths in coach B3.
29.03.2019, 5:25 AM: The Station Master, Tirur, received information from the Loco Pilot of Antyodaya Express (Train No. 16355) that a person had been hit by the train between Tirunavaya and Tirur stations.
The deceased’s body was found lying outside the track at KM 621/900. Local police conducted inquest and autopsy before handing over the body to relatives.
The respondents contended that the deceased fell from the Maveli Express, while the appellant argued that he was hit by the Antyodaya Express while trespassing on the tracks.
Procedural History
OA No. 44/2019: Filed by the respondents before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
20.12.2023: The Tribunal allowed the application, holding that the death was an untoward incident and the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with 6% interest was awarded.
MFA (RCT) No. 1/2026: The Union of India filed this appeal challenging the Tribunal’s order.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the Tribunal’s order, contending that the death was not an untoward incident under Section 124A and that the deceased was trespassing on the railway tracks. The respondents sought to uphold the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 imposes strict liability on the Railways for the death of a passenger who was hit by a train while trespassing on the tracks, where there was no evidence that the accident involved the train in which the deceased was travelling.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (Union of India)
The deceased was hit by the Antyodaya Express, not the Maveli Express, in which he was travelling. The evidence of the Loco Pilot (RW1) and the Drivers Rough Journal (Ext.R1(c)) established that the deceased was walking on the tracks when he was hit.
The deceased’s presence on the tracks amounted to trespass, and the injuries sustained were self-inflicted. The Railways cannot be held liable for such incidents.
There was no evidence to prove that the deceased fell from the Maveli Express. The theory of a fall was highly improbable, as the deceased was seen walking on the tracks moments before the accident.
For the Respondents (Legal Heirs)
The Railways are strictly liable under Section 124A for the death or injury of bonafide passengers, regardless of negligence or self-inflicted injuries.
The deceased was a bonafide passenger, and his death occurred during the course of travel, making the Railways liable for compensation.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572], which held that the Railways cannot escape liability even if the passenger was negligent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which imposes strict liability on the Railways for death or injury to bonafide passengers in untoward incidents. However, the Court emphasized that this liability is not absolute and does not extend to cases where the passenger’s death is unrelated to the train in which they were travelling.
"The significant missing link in the case at hand is regarding the presence of the deceased on the track at the place of accident. There is no evidence throwing light on the said aspect. According to the Loco Pilot of the Antyodaya Express, the deceased was seen walking alongside the track when the train approached the place of accident. The train hit the deceased and the Loco Pilot immediately reported the accident to the Station Master, who in turn conveyed the information to the concerned and the body was recovered soon."
The Court noted that there was no evidence to establish that the deceased fell from the Maveli Express. The Loco Pilot’s testimony and the Drivers Rough Journal (Ext.R1(c)) clearly indicated that the deceased was hit by the Antyodaya Express while walking on the tracks. The Court observed:
"If the fatal injuries were sustained as a result of a fall from Maveli Express, the deceased, an octogenarian, might not have been in a position to walk alongside the track. As spoken to by RW1, in consonance with his report sent after the accident, the deceased was hit by Antyodaya Express and he succumbed to the injuries before the police personnel reached the spot."
The Court held that the deceased’s presence on the tracks amounted to trespass, which is an offence under the Railways Act. The theory that he fell from the Maveli Express was not only unsupported by evidence but also highly improbable. Therefore, the Court concluded that the death did not qualify as an untoward incident under Section 124A, and the Railways could not be held liable for compensation.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in OA No. 44/2019 was set aside, and the application for compensation was dismissed. The Court held that no compensation was payable under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 for the death of the deceased, as he was trespassing on the railway tracks at the time of the accident.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Strict Liability Under Section 124A Has Limits
The judgment clarifies that Section 124A does not impose absolute liability on the Railways for all deaths or injuries occurring during travel. The incident must involve the train in which the passenger was travelling.
Practitioners must establish a direct link between the accident and the train in which the passenger was travelling to claim compensation under Section 124A.
Trespass Excludes Compensation
If a passenger is found trespassing on railway tracks, the Railways cannot be held liable for compensation, even if the passenger was a bonafide traveller in another train.
The burden of proof lies on the claimants to establish that the death or injury occurred due to an untoward incident involving the train in which they were travelling.
Evidence Is Crucial in Railway Claims
The judgment underscores the importance of evidence in railway compensation claims. Mere allegations of a fall or accident are insufficient without corroborative proof.
Claimants must provide clear evidence, such as witness testimonies or documentary proof, to establish the circumstances of the accident.
