Gujarat HC: Catering Waiter Who Fell from Running Train Was a Bona Fide Passenger, Railways Cannot Escape Liability Under No-Fault Rule
The Gujarat High Court dismissed Railways' appeal against a Rs 8 lakh compensation award, holding that an authorised catering waiter who fell between coaches was a deemed railway servant and bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, 1989.
The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging a Railway Claims Tribunal award of Rs 8,00,000 with 9% interest to the dependants of Hariprasad Gupta, a catering waiter who died on the intervening night of 28–29 June 2018 after falling from train No. 19269, the Porbandar–Muzaffarpur Motihari Express. Justice J. C. Doshi, sitting singly, confirmed the Tribunal's finding that the deceased was a “deemed railway servant” and a bona fide passenger, and that his death constituted an “untoward incident” attracting strict liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Railways' argument that crossing between compartments amounted to self-inflicted injury was rejected as incompatible with the no-fault liability framework affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Incident and the Claim Before the Tribunal
Hariprasad Gupta was employed as an authorised vendor and waiter by M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd., which held an on-board catering contract with the commercial department of Western Railway. The contract, executed on 2 March 2015, ran for five years until 3 March 2020, and was subsisting on the date of the accident.
On the night of 28–29 June 2018, while the train was running near KM No. 632/8 close to Chamaraj Railway Station, Gupta was crossing from one compartment to another. A sudden jerk and jolt caused him to lose his balance and fall from the running train. He sustained multiple grievous crushed injuries and died on the spot. The Inquest Panchnama recorded that he was servicing as a vendor and waiter in the Porbandar–Motihari train and died due to a train accident when his neck was cut after falling from the running train.
His widow, Meenadevi, filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Indian Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking Rs 8,00,000 with interest. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Branch, by its decision dated 14 August 2023, granted the full amount with 9% interest from the date of the incident. The Railway administration then filed the present first appeal under Section 23 of the Indian Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
Railways' Three-Pronged Challenge
Advocate Mrs. Krishna G. Rawal, appearing for the Union of India, pressed three distinct grounds before the High Court.
First, she relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Pushpa w/o Gautam Kamble and Others v. Union of India (First Appeal No. 147 of 2017) to argue that a hawker or waiter crossing from one compartment to another and sustaining injuries was a form of self-inflicted injury. Under the proviso to Section 124-A, self-inflicted injury disentitles dependants from compensation.
Second, she contended that the Tribunal had erroneously treated the deceased as a railway employee. The claimant had never asserted that Gupta was a railway employee, yet the Tribunal concluded he was one and awarded compensation on that basis — a finding she characterised as a manifest error.
Third, she pointed to the ID card issued by M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the deceased, which was valid only from 20 December 2016 to 18 December 2017. Since the incident occurred on the intervening night of 28–29 June 2018, she submitted that the deceased was not an authorised hawker or waiter on the fateful day and therefore could not qualify as a bona fide passenger.
Claimant's Response: Supreme Court Had Already Disapproved the Bombay HC View
Advocate Mr. Paresh Mehta, appearing for the original claimant, met each ground directly.
On the self-inflicted injury argument, he pointed out that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, reported in 2019 (3) SCC 572, had expressly disapproved the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Pushpa w/o Gautam Kamble. The Supreme Court had held that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train constitutes an untoward incident, and that the proviso to Section 124-A cannot be invoked merely on the ground of the victim's negligence. Reliance on the Bombay High Court judgment was therefore impermissible.
On the ID card, Mehta submitted that the catering contract between Indian Railways and M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd. was admittedly running at the time of the accident. An expired ID card did not, by itself, establish that the deceased was not permitted to travel as an employee of the catering agency. Significantly, M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd. — itself a party-defendant — had not come forward to deny that the deceased was its employee.
How the Tribunal Had Reasoned
Justice Doshi reproduced at length the Railway Claims Tribunal's findings, which formed the foundation of the High Court's analysis.
The Tribunal had noted that the DRM's investigation report itself described the deceased as an authorised vendor for the railway administration. The Inquest Panchnama confirmed he was servicing as a vendor and waiter in the train. The Identification Panchnama recorded his occupation as waiter in the pantry car of a railway train.
On the question of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal reasoned that catering staff working under an outsourced contract with Indian Railways discharge the same functional duties that departmental railway staff previously performed. The Tribunal invoked Section 197(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, which provides that for specified purposes the expression “railway servant” includes a person employed under a railway in connection with the service thereof by a person fulfilling a contract with the railway administration. On this basis, the Tribunal held the deceased was a deemed railway servant on duty.
On the expired ID card, the Tribunal observed that the failure to renew the card was an act of omission by M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd., not by the deceased. No railway official conducting supervisory checks had ever detected the deceased working without a valid ID card. It would be unjust, the Tribunal held, to treat a poor waiter effectively working under a contractual arrangement with Railways as an unauthorised person merely because his employer had not renewed his card.
The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527, which held that Section 124-A imposes strict liability and that fault is wholly irrelevant once a case falls within its main body.
The High Court's Analysis
Justice Doshi addressed each of the Railways' contentions in turn.
On self-inflicted injury: The Court held that the concept of self-inflicted injury requires an intention to inflict the injury, not mere negligence of any degree. Applying the self-inflicted injury exception to a waiter who lost his balance while crossing compartments would amount to invoking contributory negligence, which is impermissible under a no-fault liability regime. The Supreme Court in Rina Devi had specifically disapproved the Bombay High Court's approach in Pushpa w/o Gautam Kamble on precisely this point, rejecting the concept of self-inflicted injury in paragraphs 23 to 29 of that judgment. The Railway administration had also failed to prove that the deceased had attempted suicide or had deliberately caused injury to himself.
On the "railway employee" finding: The Court found that Mrs. Rawal had misread the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had not held that the deceased was a direct railway employee. It had held that he was a “deemed railway servant” by virtue of Section 197(2) of the Railways Act, because he was employed in connection with railway service by a person — M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd. — fulfilling a contract with the railway administration. That was a legally distinct and supportable conclusion.
On the expired ID card: The Court made two observations. First, M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd. was a party-defendant and had not raised any contention that the deceased was not its employee. In its absence, the railway administration could not press that argument. Second, the railway administration had produced no evidence to counter the factual position that the deceased was working for M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd. on the date of the incident. The catering contract itself ran from 2 March 2015 to 3 March 2020 and was not discontinued. The deceased was therefore serving as a hawker and waiter of a catering company whose contract was subsisting on the day he died.
The Court also noted the widow's affidavit evidence, filed on 1 July 2019, in which she deposed that her husband was an authorised vendor and waiter with M/s Boon Catering Pvt. Ltd. and was travelling in the pantry car of train No. 19269 on the night in question. In cross-examination, the railway administration asked only whether she knew how many years her husband had worked with the catering company. No other question was put to traverse the substance of her chief-examination. The Court held that the railway administration had therefore failed to bring the case within the four corners of the proviso to Section 124-A.
Applying the purposive interpretation mandated by Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar — that the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation requiring a liberal construction — the Court confirmed that the deceased's death was an untoward incident attracting strict liability under Section 124-A.
Outcome
Justice J. C. Doshi dismissed the first appeal. The impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Branch, dated 14 August 2023, awarding Rs 8,00,000 with 9% interest from 29 June 2018 until actual receipt, was confirmed. Any interim relief granted during the appeal was discontinued. The record and proceedings were directed to be sent back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, which was directed to disburse the compensation amount to the claimant if it had not already been disbursed.