The Jharkhand High Court in the case Mrs. Sangita Devi and Ors. v. Union of India through General Manager, SER observed and has ordered s. 4 lakh compensation under Railways Act in favour of a widow, she lost her husband in an assault by the Railway Police personnel during the train journey after he protested her molestation by the said personnel.
The court while setting aside the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal wherein the court dismissed the claim of the petitioner. The single bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi in case held that the incident would amount to an ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the widow would be entitled for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. However, the deceased was being assaulted in pursuant to protest of molestation of his wife while travelling in a train, certainly the said incident will come within the meaning of untoward incident. Adding to it, it was stated that it being a country where crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air or in a private car by giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression it will be amount to deprive a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly the middle and poor class people) from getting of the compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
Therefore, the claim of the women was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that FSL report stated that aluminum phosphide, a strong gastro intestinal irritant poison was being detected in the deceased’s viscera.
In an appeal it has been found by the High Court that the post mortem report of deceased is crystal clear that death has occurred due to injury (the swelling and bruises on the head) which is being inflicted during the assault. Further, the court noted that the deceased and the appellant were bona fide passengers. Thus, the guilt has been accepted by two higher officials of the police of four police personnel based on CB-CID inquiry. The court stated that there being no dispute under the Act there is statutory liability of the railway administration for death and /or injury of a passenger due to any untoward incident while travelling in train. Therefore, it being a breach of common law duty of reasonable case which lies upon all carriers including the railways. Thus, the standard of case is high and being strict. Where there being a complete dereliction of duty of railway officials which resulted in a precious life been taken away rendering the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India illusory.
