Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a bona fide passenger who falls while trying to board a moving train is covered by the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether compensation is payable under Section 124A of that Act.
Analysis: The expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" was held capable of covering not only a case where a passenger falls after entering the train, but also a case where a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket or pass falls while attempting to board a moving train. The compensation provision in the Railways Act is a beneficial enactment and therefore requires a liberal, purposive construction rather than a narrow literal one. On that approach, the incident fell within the statutory definition of "untoward incident". The Court further held that Section 124A creates a regime of strict liability or no fault liability, so questions of negligence or contributory negligence were irrelevant once the case fell within the provision, and none of the statutory exceptions applied.
Conclusion: The incident was an untoward incident within Section 123(c), compensation was payable under Section 124A, and the appeal against the grant of compensation had no merit.