Under the Railways Act, 1989 (India), compensation claims can arise in a few distinct circumstances, primarily under Sections 123, 124, and 124A. Here’s the breakdown:
1. Railway “Accident” — Section 124
Compensation is payable when there’s an accident to a train carrying passengers, resulting in:
- Death of a passenger
- Personal injury to a passenger
- Loss, destruction, damage, or deterioration of passenger’s luggage/goods
This is no-fault liability — the claimant doesn’t need to prove negligence by the railway. It’s triggered by:
- Collision of trains
- Derailment
- Any other accident to a train carrying passengers
2. “Untoward Incident” — Section 124A (most litigated category)
This is broader and covers incidents that aren’t classic “accidents” but still cause death/injury. Under Section 123(c), an “untoward incident” includes:
- (i) Terrorist act, violent attack, or robbery
- (ii) The accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers
- (iii) Any of the following occurring due to any cause:
- Explosion, fire, or any other reason of a like nature in a train carrying passengers, or in a carriage part of such train
- Collision of a train with any object
This is the section that captures situations like a person falling off a running train, or dying from a fire/explosion — again on a no-fault basis, subject to the proviso.
Proviso to 124A — Exclusions
No compensation if death/injury is proved to be due to:
- Suicide or attempted suicide by the passenger
- Self-inflicted injury
- Own criminal act
- Insanity of the passenger
- Any act committed while the passenger was under the influence of intoxicants/drugs (own act, not railway’s)
3. Who Qualifies as a “Passenger” (critical threshold issue)
This is where most litigation happens (as you’ll know from Jameela, Rina Devi, Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar). Courts have held “passenger” includes:
- A person holding a valid ticket
- A person holding a valid platform ticket
- Bona fide travelers even without a ticket in hand at the moment of accident, if there’s evidence they intended to travel (e.g., found with luggage, on the platform, family testimony)
The burden has increasingly shifted toward a presumption in favor of the claimant, especially post-Rina Devi (2012) and Kirloskar line of cases — courts lean against denying compensation merely for want of a ticket, particularly in death cases, given the remedial nature of the statute.
4. Forum — Section 13 read with Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
Claims under 124/124A go before the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), not civil courts (civil court jurisdiction is barred under Section 15 of the RCT Act).