'Railway Strictly Liable For Death Of Passenger': Orissa High Court Grants ₹9.23 Lakh Compensation For Man's Death Due To Sudden Train Jolt

“Beneficial legislation must be given effect to in a manner that heals, not in a manner that harms,” the Orissa High Court recently remarked while directing the Railway Department to pay compensation to the kin of a deceased person who succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained during a train travel in the year 2006.Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi criticised the railway department for its callous response to the tragedy, which forced the bereaved family to run from “pillar to post” for securing the monetary relief to which it was lawfully entitled. In the words of the Judge –“When a passenger dies during train travel, the first obligation of the Railways is to extend compassion and assistance to the grieving family. To compel such a family to engage in protracted litigation, amounts to abdication of this solemn responsibility. It must be remembered that the deceased passenger was not a trespasser or an interloper; he was a citizen exercising his lawful right of travel. His family, therefore, should have been shielded by the law, not exposed to its harshest rigours.”Briefly put, one Sarbeswar Swain (the deceased) was travelling from Allahabad to Cuttack in Neelachal Express on 25.12.2006. During the course of his journey, he accidentally fell down inside the compartment due to a sudden jolt and got unconscious. As a result of such fall, he is said to have sustained grievous injuries to his brain along with other injuries to his person.Though he was immediately rushed to the nearest Government Hospital, yet he could not recuperate and succumbed to his injuries on 27.12.2006. The appellant, being the legal heir of the deceased, filed a claim petition on 27.8.2007 seeking a compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- with cost and interest at 12% per annum.By a judgment dated 12.12.2014, the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the death of the deceased was caused due to cardiac arrest. Being aggrieved, the appellant had approached the High Court which. By an order dated 05.12.2023, the Court had recorded the findings of the post-mortem report, which attributed the cause of death to shock and haemorrhage, ruling out possibility of cardiac arrest. Accordingly, Court had set aside the findings of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, particularly whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation in view of the nature of death. However, the Tribunal again dismissed the claim holding that the incident does not come under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 which covers merely “the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. The case at hand, it held, is not a case of fall from a train, rather a case of fall inside the train.Thus, the only question which arose for consideration was whether the deceased died in an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and if the answer is in affirmative, what relief his kin is entitled to.In order to clarify the scope of application of the aforesaid provision, reliance was placed upon Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008), wherein the Supreme Court had held that Railways Act being a beneficial legislation, liberal interpretation must be given in favour of claimants. Thus, notwithstanding whether the passenger fell down from a moving train or met with an accident while boarding the train, he should be held entitled to the compensation.Justice Panigrahi was of the view that modes of public transportation, including railways, fall squarely within the scope of the doctrine of 'strict liability' which requires industries/establishments engaged in hazardous activities to mandatorily bear burden of the risk of damage, irrespective of negligence. “Where a passenger dies in a railway accident not attributable to any exception recognized under law, strict liability must follow. The Railway Administration, enjoying the monopoly of carriage, cannot seek refuge under pleas of absence of negligence. It must bear the burden, for it alone has the capacity to insure against such risks and spread the loss across its operations. This ensures justice to the victim and maintains confidence in the system of public transport,” he held.The Bench further opined that fastening strict liability upon a hazardous enterprise furthers the constitutional philosophy of Article 21, and thereby, a risky activity carried out under the aegis of the State cannot escape constitutional accountability when harm occurs.“The law must evolve to meet the demands of justice in a society where large-scale technological operations carry risks for the individual. The death of a passenger in train travel is precisely the sort of harm strict liability was designed to address. It ensures that the weaker party—the individual citizen—is not left remediless against the might of the State or its instrumentalities.”The Court further held that death of a passenger in the course of...

'Railway Strictly Liable For Death Of Passenger': Orissa High Court Grants ₹9.23 Lakh Compensation For Man's Death Due To Sudden Train Jolt

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags