P.P Naolekar, C.J:— An application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was, filed by Smt. Hem Lata Mudoi, mother of the deceased Mridul Mudoi claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000 for the death of her son who met his death in an untoward accident at Digaru Railway Station while travelling by Kapili Inter City Express.
2. The brief facts on the basis of which the compensation was claimed are that the deceased Mridul Mudoi was working as ASM at Digaru Railway Station under NF Railway. On 1.6.1999 the deceased was travelling by 67 UP Kapili Inter City Express from Guwahati in to Jagiroad Railway Station. The deceased was holding a 2nd Class ticket for travelling with the Railways. There was a heavy rush in the train and the deceased fell down from the train at Digaru Railway Station as a result thereof sustained his death. The incident took place at about 11.10 AM. The dead body was sent to the Gauhati Medical College Hospital where the post mortem was conducted and after the dead body was returned to the mother of the deceased. As per the Railways, who has entered appearance opposing the claim, the deceased was negligent while travelling and thus there is no responsibility of the Railways to pay the compensation.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench after consideration of the evidence placed on record by the applicant has arrived at the conclusion that on the relevant day the deceased Mridul Mudoi was travelling in the train after purchasing the ticket. It has not been seriously opposed that the Inter City Express does not stop at Digaru Station. It has been proved that the deceased has been going to Digaru Railway Station for his training. On the facts and circumstances pleaded and proved it would not be out of place to believe that the deceased was going to Jagiroad Railway Station and that he fell down from the running train which would be an untoward, incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989. With this finding the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 as per Schedule to Rule 3 of Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (as amended in 1997) was awarded.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Railway Claims Tribunal the present appeal is filed by the Railways. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings arrived at by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased sustained injuries and as a result thereof died cannot be said to be on account of untoward incident and, further the Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claimant has not proved the fact that her case does not fall under any of the exceptions under proviso to section 124A of the Railways Act and, therefore, the compensation could not have been awarded under section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Untoward incident has been defined under section 123(c) which covers the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Thus any passenger who is travelling in passenger train falls from the train accidentally it would be an untoward incident within the meaning of section 123 of the Act, 1989. Section 124A provides for a compensation when in the course of the working a railway an untoward incident occurs, a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed are entitled for damages in respect thereof and the Railway Administration is liable to pay the compensation, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, to such extent as may be prescribed for the loss occasioned by the death of the passenger as a result of such untoward incident. This liability of the Railway to pay the compensation under section 124A is irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. Once it is found that there was an untoward incident, the railway is liable to pay the compensation. The exceptions from payment of compensation by railway in cases of untoward incidence is provided in proviso to section 124A. The Railway Administration shall not be liable to pay compensation on account of the death if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by him; self-inflicted injury; own criminal act; any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity or any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. The railway can escape liability of payment of compensation, only, if the aforesaid circumstances are proved by them. Incidences mentioned in proviso to section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989 being the exceptions to the general rule for payment of compensation for the death, the burden lies on the railways to prove any of these circumstances, which may fall within the exceptions. In the absence of any proof by the Railway Administration it shall be presumed that the accident occurred on account of untoward incident.
5. In the present case the railways has not led any evidence to bring the case within the proviso to section 124A of the Act, 1989. Once it is found that the death was occurred on account of untoward incident, the direction for payment of compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal is in accordance with law. The judgement of the Railway Claims Tribunal is well founded and is based on the materials placed on record. We do-not find any reason to interfere with it.
6. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000. The claimant respondent shall be entitled for the amount as directed by the Railway Claims Tribunal.