SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 818

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI., N.V. RAMANA, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Kamrunnissa - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26625 of 2015
Decided on : 01-02-2017.

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:C. George Thomas (For Ejaz Maqbool), Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Ansh Singh Luthra, Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Ms. Sushma Verma, Ms. Manita Sharma, Balendu Shekhart, Ms. Shruti Srivastav, Raj Bahadur (For Mukesh Kumar Maroria), Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the circumstances of the accident, as evidenced by the inquest report and the First Information Report, are crucial in determining entitlement to compensation in a railway accident case.

Headnote:

Railway Accident - Compensation - [Railway Act, Section 174 CR PC] - The court discussed the inquest report and the First Information Report to determine whether the deceased was attempting to board the train at the time of the accident. The court found that the deceased was not in the process of boarding the train and dismissed the petition for compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased husband of the petitioner was involved in a railway accident and the petitioner sought compensation from the railway authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased was not in the process of boarding the train at the time of the accident based on the inquest report and the First Information Report.

Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased was attempting to board the train at the time of the accident, which would entitle the petitioner to compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the inquest report and the First Information Report to determine the circumstances of the accident and found that the deceased was not in the process of boarding the train.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for compensation based on the finding that the deceased was not in the process of boarding the train at the time of the accident.

ORDER :

We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties.

2. The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the deceased husband of the petitioner, Gafoor Sab, had purchased a ticket, and was attempting to board the train on 06.05.2007, at Devanagere, when the railway accident took place, whereupon he lost his life.

3. Only if the above query is answered in affirmative, the petitioner herein would be entitled to compensation from the railway authorities.

4. The Railway Claims Tribunal, as also the High Court of Karnataka, while adjudicating upon the controversy raised by the petitioner, have arrived at a conclusion, that the petitioner could not establish that her deceased husband, Gafoor Sab, had purchased a ticket, and was in the process of boarding the train at Devanagere railway station, when the accident had taken place.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that there was no justification for the courts below to have recorded such a conclusion, inasmuch as, it was clearly apparent from the inquest report prepared by the Assistant Commissioner, Railway Police Station, Devangere, that the death of the husband of the petitioner, Gafoor Sab, was caused on account of a railway accident. It was, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that it should be presumed, that deceased Gafoor Sab had purchased a ticket, and he was in the process of boarding the train at the Devangere railway station, when the accident had taken place.

6. We have considered the contentions advanced at the hands of the rival parties. We are of the view, that the issue in hand can be determined on the basis of paragraphs 7 & 8 of the inquest report, submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Railway Police Station, Devangere. The above paragraphs are extracted hereunder :

"VII Dead body was lying in two pieces on Road. No one on the Railway track, with head towards South and lying inside down, legs towards North which had become into two pieces and lying next to the Railway Track, muscle and intestine has come out of the body.

White full shirt, White Dhoti and Spectacle. White Chappals, there is a diary in his pocket having few phone numbers. No other items are found apart from this.

VIII Dead body was lying in two pieces on Road. No one on the Railway track, with head towards South and lying inside down, legs towards North, Railway track is facing East West direction. Towards North : Road Nos.2, 3 and Good Shed road, South by : PF 1 AND THEN Quarters of Railway Staff, a) b) c) No. "

A perusal of the aforesaid report reveals, that the body of the deceased, Gafoor Sab, was found on road. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept, that the railway accident in question had taken place when the deceased was boarding the train on the railway station.

7. The afore stated report also reveals, that the body of the deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible for us to accept, that such an accident could have taken place while boarding a train.

8. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted herein above, the report also reveals, that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities, namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere railway station.

9. In addition to the above, it is necessary to refer to the factual position disclosed in t




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top