Jaspreet Kaur And ORS. v. Union Of India

We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly. 25.

We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of 'self inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, 2018(1) RCR (Civil) 680 : 2017 (13) SCALE 652 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault theory' under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-

boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor."