Exceptions to Liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989

Exceptions to Liability: A Scholarly Analysis of the Proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989

Introduction

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter "the Act") represents a significant legislative intervention in the domain of accident compensation, establishing a regime of strict liability for the Railway Administration in the event of an "untoward incident." This provision mandates the payment of compensation for death or injury to a passenger, irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the Railway Administration. However, this broad ambit of liability is circumscribed by a proviso appended to Section 124-A, which enumerates specific circumstances under which the Railway Administration is exonerated from the obligation to pay compensation. These exceptions are crucial in defining the contours of the Railways' liability and have been the subject of extensive judicial scrutiny. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of these exceptions, drawing upon statutory provisions and authoritative case law from India, to elucidate their scope and application.

The Railways Act, 1989, through provisions like Section 124-A, aims to provide a more efficacious remedy to passengers or their dependents affected by untoward incidents, moving away from the traditional fault-based liability system. The Explanation to Section 124-A clarifies that for the purposes of this section, a "passenger" includes a railway servant on duty (Commanding Officer, Railway Protection Special Force, Mumbai v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor And Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 91). Understanding the exceptions is therefore paramount for legal practitioners, tribunals, and the judiciary in adjudicating claims under this welfare legislation.

The Principle of Strict Liability under Section 124-A

Section 124-A of the Act statutorily imposes strict liability, or no-fault liability, upon the Railway Administration for death or injury resulting from an "untoward incident." The section explicitly states that liability arises "whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof" (Union Of India v. Satish Patidar, 2003 (3) MPHT 38). This departure from the common law requirement of proving negligence simplifies the process for claimants, ensuring quicker relief.

The Supreme Court, in Union Of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar And Others (2008 SCC 9 527), emphasized a liberal and purposive interpretation of such provisions, reinforcing the doctrine of strict liability. The Court reasoned that the Act's compensatory framework aims to protect passengers broadly. This principle was further reiterated in Union Of India v. Rina Devi (2019 SCC 3 572), where the Supreme Court affirmed that under Sections 124 and 124-A, the Railways are subject to strict or no-fault liability, meaning negligence of the Railways does not need to be proven unless the exceptions in the proviso apply. The Allahabad High Court in The Union Of India & Another v. Smt. Gulaba Devi & 5 Others (2009 SCC OnLine All 1831) also acknowledged the development of strict liability principles de hors statutory provisions, referencing M.C Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086).

The Bombay High Court in VIJAY GANESH SALVE v. UNION OF INDIA (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2086) observed that the scheme of Chapter XIII of the Act "clearly lays down that the Railway administration is strictly liable to pay compensation to its passengers irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of Railway administration," though this liability is limited by the prescribed amount and the exceptions in the proviso.

Understanding "Untoward Incident"

The liability under Section 124-A is triggered by an "untoward incident." Section 123(c) of the Act defines "untoward incident" to include:

  1. the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-clause (i) of clause (k) of section 2 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; or
  2. the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
  3. the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or
  4. the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

The judiciary has interpreted "accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers" broadly. In Union Of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar And Others (2008 SCC 9 527), the Supreme Court held that a passenger falling while attempting to board a moving train qualified as an untoward incident. Similarly, in Jameela And Others v. Union Of India (2010 SCC 12 443), the death of a passenger who fell from a train was recognized as an untoward incident. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union Of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah And Others (2003 SCC OnLine AP 1001) noted that "accidental falling would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action." Only if an incident qualifies as "untoward" does the question of applying the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124-A arise.

The Proviso to Section 124-A: Enumerated Exceptions

The proviso to Section 124-A carves out specific situations where, despite an untoward incident, the Railway Administration will not be liable to pay compensation. It states:

"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."
These exceptions are exhaustive and form the primary defence available to the Railway Administration against a claim under Section 124-A.

Judicial Interpretation of the Exceptions

The courts have meticulously examined each of these exceptions, generally adopting a strict interpretation against the Railways, given the beneficial nature of the legislation.

(a) Suicide or Attempted Suicide

This exception absolves the Railways of liability if the death or injury is a result of a suicidal act by the passenger. The Railway Claims Tribunal in SMT RENU RATHOR v. GM, NWR, JAIPUR (2017, RCT Jaipur) dismissed a claim upon finding that the deceased had committed suicide, thus falling under clause (a) of the proviso. The Bombay High Court in Ravichand v. Union Of India (2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1450) also acknowledged "attempted suicide" as a valid exception if pleaded and proved by the Railways.

(b) Self-Inflicted Injury

This is one of the most frequently contested exceptions. The seminal pronouncement on this is Jameela And Others v. Union Of India (2010 SCC 12 443). The Supreme Court clarified that mere negligence on the part of the passenger, such as standing at an open door of a moving train from where he fell, does not constitute a "self-inflicted injury" within the meaning of the proviso. The Court emphasized that the exceptions listed in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso must be strictly construed. Unless the passenger's act squarely falls within these specific categories, compensation is payable.

The Supreme Court in Union Of India v. Rina Devi (2019 SCC 3 572), while discussing various High Court views, noted that some (like Joseph P.T. v. Union Of India (2014 Ker 12) cited therein) had interpreted "self-inflicted injury" to include acts of gross negligence. However, the Court in *Rina Devi* ultimately affirmed the principle that the exceptions under the proviso do not cover mere negligence of the passenger. It observed, "The view taken in Jameela (supra) that negligence of a passenger is not covered by the proviso to Section 124A has been reaffirmed in the later decisions." The Jharkhand High Court in Gunadhar Marandi And Another v. Union Of India (2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 1014) highlighted an instance where a claim was wrongly denied by the Tribunal by categorizing an accidental fall due to jostling as a self-inflicted injury, contrary to the law laid down in *Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar*.

Thus, "self-inflicted injury" appears to connote an injury inflicted with a degree of intention or recklessness that goes beyond ordinary carelessness or negligence attributable to a passenger in the course of travel. The Bombay High Court in VIJAY GANESH SALVE v. UNION OF INDIA (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2086) noted a case where the Tribunal rejected a claim on the ground of self-inflicted injuries, indicating that if proven, this is a valid defence.

(c) His Own Criminal Act

For this exception to apply, the injury or death must be a direct consequence of a criminal act committed by the passenger. The Supreme Court in Jameela And Others v. Union Of India (2010 SCC 12 443) suggested that a "criminal act" under the proviso would likely require an element of *mens rea* or malicious intent, distinguishing it from acts of simple negligence. Merely violating a railway rule might not automatically constitute a "criminal act" for the purpose of this exception unless it carries the requisite criminal intent and is the proximate cause of the injury or death. The Bombay High Court in Ravichand v. Union Of India (2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1450) also listed "criminal act" by the passenger as a ground for exemption if pleaded and proved.

(d) Any Act Committed by Him in a State of Intoxication or Insanity

If a passenger's injury or death is due to an act committed while in a state of intoxication or insanity, the Railways are not liable. This requires the Railway Administration to prove not only the state of intoxication or insanity but also that the act leading to the incident was committed due to such state. In Ravichand v. Union Of India (2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1450), "travel in a state of intoxication" was mentioned as an exception. In Union Of India v. Rina Devi (2019 SCC 3 572), the Railways had contended that the deceased was a wanderer suffering from a mental disorder, but the Supreme Court upheld the compensation, implying a high threshold for proving such exceptions and their causal link to the incident.

(e) Any Natural Cause or Disease

This exception covers situations where death or injury occurs due to natural causes or a pre-existing disease, unrelated to the untoward incident. For instance, if a passenger dies of a heart attack during a train journey due to a pre-existing condition, and not as a result of an accidental fall or other untoward incident, this exception would apply. The proviso further clarifies that if medical or surgical treatment becomes necessary due to an injury caused by the untoward incident itself, then this exception does not apply to complications arising from such treatment.

Distinction between Passenger Negligence and Proviso Exceptions

A crucial aspect of the jurisprudence surrounding Section 124-A is the distinction between mere passenger negligence and the specific exceptions enumerated in the proviso. The Supreme Court in Jameela And Others v. Union Of India (2010 SCC 12 443) unequivocally held that the passenger's own negligence, such as standing at an open door of a running train, does not automatically disentitle the claimants to compensation, unless such negligence amounts to one of the specific acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso. This principle was reiterated by the Madras High Court in Mrs. Annapoorani & Others… v. The Union Of India (2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3250) and The Union Of India Owning Southern Railway... v. ...P. Periyasamy... (2012 SCC OnLine Mad 5543), both relying heavily on the *Jameela* judgment.

The court in *Jameela* stated:

"However, so far as the compensation is concerned the case of the Claimant is covered by the provision of Section 124-A as because of his own negligence the deceased had fallen down from the train which caused his death. Further, in the light of the fact that the deceased acted in a negligent manner without any precaution of safety by station going at the open door of the running train which resulted into his death.” On Claimants Appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to Sections 123(c) & 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, held... that unless the exclusions specified in the proviso to Section 124-A applied, compensation remains payable." (as quoted in The Union Of India Owning Southern Railway... v. ...P. Periyasamy..., 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 5543, para 24, referencing *Jameela*).

This interpretation ensures that the strict liability nature of Section 124-A is not diluted by introducing general contributory negligence as a defence, which is not explicitly provided for in the proviso.

Burden of Proof for Invoking Exceptions

The onus of proving that a particular case falls within one of the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124-A lies squarely on the Railway Administration. In Union Of India v. Rina Devi (2019 SCC 3 572), the Supreme Court, while discussing the burden of proving bona fide passenger status, indicated that once the claimant makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Railways. This principle extends to proving the applicability of exceptions. If the Railways seek to avoid liability by invoking an exception, they must plead it specifically and adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate it.

Numerous High Courts have affirmed this position. The Allahabad High Court in Union Of India v. Ram Jhari Devi (2010 SCC OnLine All 2904) held that "burden to prove that a person suffered in the accident occurred for the fault of passenger lies on the shoulder of railways... burden shall shift on the railways to establish that the case falls under the exception provided under section 124 A of the Act." Similarly, in Union Of India v. Brijendra Singh (2011 SCC OnLine All 1225), the same court noted the absence of evidence from the Railways to claim the benefit of an exception. The Bombay High Court in SMT. LILABAI WD/O SOMA NAITAM... v. UNION OF INDIA... (2020 SCC OnLine Bom 359) explicitly stated, "The burden to prove that the case falls under the proviso below Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is on the respondent [Railways]." The court in Ravichand v. Union Of India (2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1450) also emphasized that the Railway Administration must plead and prove the exception. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union Of India, South Central Railways... v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah... (2003 SCC OnLine AP 1001) outlined that Railways can avoid liability by proving one of the statutory defences.

The Delhi High Court in SHYAM BATI & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA (2018 SCC OnLine Del 7189) allowed an appeal where a passenger with a valid ticket died on railway tracks, holding that the exception under Section 124-A would not be available to the Railways in such circumstances without specific proof.

The Imperative of Liberal Construction

It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that beneficial legislation should be construed liberally to advance the object of the law. Section 124-A, being a provision aimed at providing relief to victims of untoward incidents, falls into this category. The Bombay High Court in Sanajy Sampatrao Gaikwad v. Union Of India (2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1200) observed that "a statutory provision which is made in public interest and which is essentially a piece of beneficial legislation, the same is required to be liberally construed so as to advance very object of the provision of law and to fulfil the aim sought to be advanced by such provision."

This principle implies that the exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 124-A should be interpreted strictly and narrowly. Any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the claimant, ensuring that the protective ambit of the section is not unduly curtailed. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Meera Devi v. Union Of India (2024 SCC OnLine MP 1060) reiterated that "the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation that requires liberal construction and railways failed to prove that the matter is within the ambit of exception under Section 124-A".

Conclusion

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, establishes a vital framework of strict liability for the Railway Administration concerning untoward incidents involving passengers. The proviso to this section, however, carves out specific, enumerated exceptions: suicide, self-inflicted injury, passenger's own criminal act, acts under intoxication or insanity, and natural causes or disease. Judicial interpretation, particularly by the Supreme Court in cases like Jameela And Others v. Union Of India, has been pivotal in clarifying the scope of these exceptions. It is now firmly established that mere negligence on the part of a passenger does not, by itself, bring the case within any of these exceptions, particularly "self-inflicted injury."

The burden of pleading and proving the applicability of an exception lies heavily upon the Railway Administration. Given the beneficial and welfare-oriented nature of this legislation, courts consistently advocate for a liberal construction of the main provision and a strict, narrow interpretation of its exceptions. This approach ensures that the legislative intent of providing timely and effective compensation to victims of untoward railway incidents is upheld, balancing the Railways' liability with clearly defined statutory defences.