.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1869 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.G.J. Mohan Rao for the appellant. Mr.T.J. Pandian for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. By consent, the appeal is heard finally at the admission stage itself. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th April 2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim application filed by Smt. Priya Gawali, mother of Sumit Gawali (for short "the deceased") who died on account of a fall from a running train. 3. The deceased was hit by a railway pole and fell down while travelling in a railway train. The Tribunal has held that this is not an untoward incident and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled - 2 - to compensation. 4. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The order of the Tribunal that no compensation is payable in view of the fact that the deceased himself had protruded part of his body (head) outside the railway compartment, is unsustainable. However, since other issues have not been decided by the Tribunal, the matter is required to be remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh. Hence, I pass the following order: 4. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar - 3 - (supra). In view of the fact that the original application was filed in the year 1999, the Tribunal is directed to hear decide the same afresh expeditiously, preferably within 6 months of the receipt of this order. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)