The
gory accident involving death of passengers is now probably forgotten in a few
days – that sad incident, occurred at St
Thomas Mount police station - as the
train was rolling on to platform 4, normally reserved for express trains,
several commuters hanging on to the footboard in the compartment next to the
engine smashed into the concrete fencing wall built on platform 3 and fell to
the ground. Four of them were crushed to death under the train that was still
moving fairly fast. Railway authorities said shoulder bags of several commuters
travelling footboard hit the cement fence, and 10 passengers fell to the
ground.A snag in the overhead electrical line had forced them to run slow local
trains on the fast lines meant for express services, said southern railway
officials.
With
effect from 1.8.1994 under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 the railway
administration has become liable to pay
compensation for loss of life or injury to bonafide rail passengers, who become
victims of untoward incidents such as terrorist acts, violent attack, robbery,
dacoity, rioting, shoot-out or arson by any persons in or on any train carrying
passengers, waiting hall, cloak room, reservation or booking office, platform,
any place within the precincts of a railway station or the accidental falling
of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:-Provided
that no compensation shall be payable under this Section by the railway
administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to:- (a) suicide or
attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any
natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment
becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Payment
of compensation is governed by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997. Under these Rules, the amount of
compensation payable in case of death is Rs.4 lakhs. For injuries the amount
varies from Rs.32,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- depending on the nature of injury
sustained. Ex-gratia relief is given by the railway administration soon after
an accident, at the rate of Rs.15,000/- to the next of the kin of the dead,
Rs.5,000/- in the case of grievous injury and Rs.500/- in the case of simple
injury. The ex-gratia relief is intended to meet the immediate expenses and is
not taken into account at the time of final settlement of compensation claims.
The coverage for Hospitalization Expenses for Injury is over and above the
death/permanent total disability/partial disability – then there is the Travel
Insurance Scheme kept uniform for all classes.
You would have noticed this provision while booking a travel ticket in
IRCTC for any class of travel.
Train Accident is as defined under section 123 read with
Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 subject to the qualification
that the coverage will be valid from the actual departure of train from the
originating station to actual arrival of train at the destination station
including’ process of entraining ‘ and process of detraining ‘ the train. One
of the Q in the media was whether Railways would pay compensation to those who
lost their lives in the accident – would this be construed as – self-inflicted,
negligence, carelessness or even a criminal act, which Railways forbade.
Travel
on the footboard and a fall from the running train resulting in serious
permanent disability are technically no longer any hurdle for seeking
compensation.The mere fact of a fall from the moving train and the resultant
injuries/disability sustained is enough, the Tribunal comprising vice-chairman
(judicial) Mukesh Kumar Gupta and member (technical) S Mohan held earlier and directed Southern Railway to cough-up the
enhanced compensation of `8 lakh, with six per cent interest from the date of
filing the claim petition. In an earlier
accident a person had purchased a ticket for travel from Paramakudi
to Chennai on April 27, 2014. As the unreserved compartment was over-crowded,
he had to travel on the footboard.He fell down when the train was nearing Manamadurai
junction and sustained serious injuries. His left leg below the knee and right
foot were finally amputated. The victim, a daily wage earner, moved the Tribunal
claiming `4 lakh as compensation. Meanwhile, a GO dated December 22, 2016,
which amended the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
rules, 1990, raised the compensation amount to `8 lakh with effect from January
1, 2017.
Railways
submitted that since the claimant had
travelled on the footboard, an offence punishable under Section 156 of the
Railways Act, the Railways could not be held responsible for his fall from the
running train as the same was on account of his complete negligence. Moreover,
he was a ticket-less traveller as he could not produce a valid one. The counsel for the victim was to submit that
his client had lost his bag containing
purse and ticket during his transit from accident site to the hospital. Passing
orders, the Tribunal pointed out that the injuries suffered by the applicant
victim, as reflected in various medical documents, has not been questioned in
any manner. Similarly, not much has been stated on the journey ticket and thus,
the basic issues that the applicant was a bona fide passenger, sustained
injuries on April 27, 2014 due to the fall from the running train, remain
uncontested.As far as the plea regarding ‘negligence’ on the part of the
victim, the tribunal said it has no relevance. Law, as laid down by the Supreme
Court, is that liability of Railway is strict and even if it were to be assumed
that a passenger fell down from the train due to his own negligence, it would
not have any effect on compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways
Act, the tribunal added and directed payment of enhanced compensation of `8
lakh, as the injury and the disability were very serious falling within the
ambit of Part II of Schedule appended to the Railway Accidents Rules.
Then
there is another judgement pronounced by the High Court of Delhi in Sept 2017,
wherein the claimants challenged an order
dated 31st Aug 2012 whereby their application for compensation was
dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. A person by name Kamal Singh fell down between platform No.3
and 5 of Old Delhi Railway Station in Jan 2011. According to the appellant,
they were travelling from Ghaziabad to
Delhi – nearing Old Railway station, the deceased fell down due to huge rush
and jerk which resulted in fatal injuries. In this Court observed that the legal
position with respect to the untoward incident inside the railway station is
well settled. Section 124-A of the Railways Act is based on the principle of no
fault liability and the compensation cannot be denied to the appellant on the
ground that the deceased was negligent and it is wholly irrelevant as to who
was at fault. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines „untoward incident‟ to
include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying
passengers. The word „passenger‟ has been defined under Section 2 (29) of the
Railways Act as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The court in an earlier instance stated that it will not legally make any difference
whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or
whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our
opinion in either case it amounts to an "accidental falling of a passenger
from a train carrying passengers". Coming back to the case in hand, it is
not the case of the Railways that the death was a case of suicide or a result
of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own
criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died
due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus,
clearly accidental.
So in various cases, it has been held that an accidental fall even
when the passenger was foot-boarding would still make the Railways liable for
compensation – but what humans need to understand is whether there is
compensation or none – it makes sense not to expose self to any form of danger.
With
regards – S. Sampathkumar
No comments:
Post a Comment