Kerala HC Sets Aside Rs 8 Lakh Railway Compensation Award, Holds Deceased Was Trespassing on Track When Hit by Different Train

The Kerala High Court ruled that strict liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act cannot apply where a bonafide passenger of one train is fatally struck by a different train while walking on the track.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has set aside a compensation award of Rs 8,00,000 granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench to the children of a deceased railway passenger. Justice S. Manu, sitting singly, held that the death of the deceased — who was a bonafide passenger of one train but was fatally struck by a completely different train while walking on the track — did not constitute an “untoward incident” attracting strict liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court found the deceased's presence on the track amounted to trespass and accordingly dismissed the original application filed before the Tribunal.

The Claim Before the Railway Claims Tribunal

The seven respondents — children of the late Mathai — filed O.A. No. 44 of 2019 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, seeking compensation for the death of their father. They stated that on 28 March 2019, Mathai boarded Maveli Express Train No. 16604 from Ernakulam along with his son, the fourth respondent, to travel to Kannur. Both had reserved berths in the B3 coach of the train.

According to the claimants, Mathai somehow fell from the train when it reached Vishupadam, Tirur, and died from the injuries sustained. On 20 December 2023, the Tribunal accepted their version, held the death to be an untoward incident, found the deceased to be a bonafide passenger, and awarded compensation of Rs 8,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the original application.

The Union of India, represented by the General Manager of Southern Railway, challenged the Tribunal's judgment by filing MFA (RCT) No. 1 of 2026 before the Kerala High Court.

What the Evidence Actually Showed

The factual position before the High Court differed sharply from the claimants' narrative. On 29 March 2019 at 5:25 a.m., the Station Master, Tirur, received a message that the Loco Pilot of Train No. 16355, Antyodaya Express, had reported hitting a person between Tirunavaya and Tirur stations. The information was relayed to local police, the Railway Protection Force, and the Permanent Way Inspector. The body of Mathai was found at KM. 621/900, outside the track. Police conducted an inquest and autopsy before handing over the body to relatives.

The fourth respondent was examined as AW1, and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the claimants' side. The Railway produced a DRM report as Exhibit R1. The Loco Pilot of Antyodaya Express was examined as RW1, and another railway official as RW2. The Driver's Rough Journal dated 29 March 2019 of Train No. 16355 was marked as Exhibit R1(c).

The Loco Pilot's evidence, consistent with his accident report, was that the deceased was seen walking alongside the track when Antyodaya Express approached. The train struck him, the Loco Pilot immediately reported the accident, and the body was recovered without delay. There was no evidence that Maveli Express — the train in which Mathai held a reserved berth — was involved in the fatal accident at all.

The Railway's Case and the Claimants' Response

Counsel for the Railway, Sri Shyamdeep S. Shenoy, argued that the Tribunal had committed a serious error. The deceased and his son were both asleep in their respective berths of the B3 compartment of Maveli Express. How Mathai came to be walking on the track near the place of accident was entirely unexplained. The Loco Pilot's evidence clearly established that the deceased was walking through the railway track when he was hit by Antyodaya Express — a different train altogether. The Railway submitted that the deceased had committed trespass and the injuries were self-inflicted, taking the case outside Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Counsel for the respondents, Sri T. Aby Jacob, contended that Section 124A imposes strict liability on the Railway for the death of or injury to a bonafide passenger, regardless of the Railway's negligence. He argued that even negligence by the deceased could not make an injury “self-inflicted” in the statutory sense. He advanced a possible scenario: Mathai may have fallen from Maveli Express at the accident spot and, while trying to move away, was struck by Antyodaya Express. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572] on the principle of strict liability and the concept of self-inflicted injury under the Railways Act.

Why the High Court Rejected the Tribunal's Findings

Justice S. Manu identified what he described as the significant missing link in the case: there was no evidence explaining how or why Mathai was on the track at the place of accident. The only evidence on that point came from the Loco Pilot of Antyodaya Express, who saw the deceased walking alongside the track.

The court addressed the claimants' fall-from-Maveli-Express theory directly and found it highly improbable. Mathai was not expected to alight at Tirur station, which was near the accident spot. If he had fallen from Maveli Express, the court reasoned, he could not have been walking alongside the track when Antyodaya Express approached — not least because the deceased was described as an octogenarian. A fall from a moving train would ordinarily leave a person in no condition to walk.

The court further observed that there was nothing on record to suggest Maveli Express was involved in any incident causing injuries to Mathai. The fatal injuries were sustained when he was struck by Antyodaya Express, a train he was not a passenger of, while he was on the track.

On the strict liability argument, the court held that Section 124A of the Railways Act cannot be applied to the facts of the case. Since the theory of a fall from Maveli Express was unsupported by evidence and was highly improbable, the deceased's presence on the track could only be characterised as trespass. Trespass upon a railway track is an offence under the Railways Act. The court declined to accept the Railway's characterisation of the injuries as self-inflicted — but that rejection did not help the claimants, because the absence of any link between Maveli Express and the fatal accident remained the decisive gap. Without that link, the deceased's presence on the track stood as trespass, and the Railways' strict liability regime under Section 124A did not extend to cover it.

Order

Justice S. Manu allowed MFA (RCT) No. 1 of 2026. The judgment dated 20 December 2023 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 44 of 2019 was set aside. The original application filed by the claimants was dismissed.