Three decades later: Orissa High Court awards Rs 4 lakh compensation to widow of RPF constable struck by moving train

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.”

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation on account of untoward incidents.

Findings

• The material on record, including the investigation and inquest reports, indicates that on the date of the incident, the deceased slipped due to heavy rain in the railway yard and was struck by a moving train, resulting in his death on the spot.
• The explanation appended to Section 124-A expressly includes a railway servant on duty within the meaning of the term “passenger” for the purposes of compensation.
• Therefore, the requirement of travelling in a train, which is relevant in the case of fare-paying passengers, cannot be imported while examining the claim of a railway servant discharging official duties in the course of working the railway.
• The conclusion of the Tribunal that the incident does not qualify as an untoward incident on the ground that the deceased was not travelling as a passenger does not adequately account for the scope and effect of the explanation to Section 124-A.
• The further reasoning of the Tribunal attributing the incident to negligence on the part of the deceased also cannot be sustained, in view of the settled position of law that mere negligence, in the absence of intention or mens rea, does not fall within any of the exceptions enumerated under the proviso to Section 124-A.
• The appellant is entitled to compensation on account of the death of her husband.

Background

• It was the case of the appellant that her husband, working as a constable in the Railway Protection Force at Khurda Road Railway Station in 1996, slipped due to heavy rain and was struck by a moving train leading to his death.
• Her plea before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench was dismissed on the ground that the victim was not on duty, as she had failed to produce the command certificate relating to his duty.
• Following an appeal, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the case from the proper perspective.
• The tribunal again dismissed the plea on the ground that the incident did not constitute an “untoward incident”.