Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S.OKA, J.
Union of India ...Appellant
Versus
Smt Suchitra Ganesh Pathare & Ors. ...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO.2864 OF 2007
Decided on : 25-01-2008.
However, there may be cases where a passenger is adventurous and though it may be possible to enter the compartment he may choose to hang outside the door on the footboard. When such a person suffers the fate as the deceased in this case has suffered, it is possible to say that he had suffered a self-inflicted injury. But that is not even the cases made out by the railway administration in the present case before the Tribunal. No such specific case is made out in written statement. This is a case where the deceased along with his wife were travelling by a suburban train to meet their relative at Bhandup.
There is more than sufficient evidence on record to show that it was a case that it was a case of accidental fall from the railway. By no stretch of imagination any negligence can be attributed to the deceased. It does not lie in the mouth of the railway administration to say that as the deceased passenger was standing on the footboard near the door of the compartment, he was negligent. It is an accepted fact in the city of Mumbai that the passengers are forced to stand near the door due to perpetual overcrowding of the suburban trains. There is no option left with the passengers but to do so if they have to reach the place of work in time.
Therefore, present case will not fall in category of exception carved out by clause (b) of Section 124-A. The Court cannot shut eyes to the ground realities of the life in the city of Mumbai. There is not contest on any other ground regarding entitlement of the original appellants to claim compensation.
1. The First Appeal is preferred by the Union of India through the General Manager of Central Railway challenging the judgment and order dated 05th September, 2007 passed by the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. The respondents herein filed a claim application under section 16 read with section 13 (1-A) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation on account of death of one Ganesh Suresh Pathare in an alleged untoward incident within the meaning of section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereianfter referred to as the said Act).
2. According to the case of the respondents the deceased was travelling by a local train on 03rd February, 2002 from Ambarnath to Mumbai-CST. According to the respondents, the deceased was holding a second class railway pass for the period between 16th January 2002 to 15th February 2002. The case of the respondents made in the claim application is that when the said train reached at KM No. 32/14 near Thane railway station at about 18.35 hours, the deceased banged on a railway post due to which he fell down from the running train and sustained serious injuries. According to the respondents he died on the spot. Accordingly, a claim for compensation was made by invoking section 124-A of the said Act. The appellant contested the claim application by filing a written statement. The written statement runs only into two pages containing general denials. The only specific contention raised is in paragraph No.3 of the written statement in which the appellant stated that death of the deceased occurred due to his own negligence.
2. The learned Members of the Tribunal allowed the claim application by holding that the deceased was a victim of an untoward incident within the meaning of section 123(c)(2) of the said Act. The learned Members of the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
3. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that there is no material on record to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the alleged incident. His submission is that by no stretch of imagination there was an untoward incident in as much as this was not a case of an accidental fall from the railway but the deceased who was precariously hanging outside the compartment banged against a pole standing near the railway track and that is the reason he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. He submitted that the deceased himself was negligent as he had no business to hang outside the compartment of the train. He submitted that this case falls in the exceptions carved out by the section 124A of the said Act.He submitted that the entire story put up by the respondents in their claim petition is unbelievable and is not supported by the evidence on record. He submitted that the Station Master’s memo clearly shows that the deceased was knocked down by an unknown local train and therefore it cannot be treated as an accidental fall from the train. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and need to be interfered with by this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order by pointing out that there was no evidence on record to show that the deceased was precariously hanging outside the compartment. He submitted that the deceased was standing at the door of the compartment and as the compartment was overcrowded, the deceased was pushed outside as a result the pole banged against him which resulted in accidental fall from the train.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the compilation containing a copy of the claim ap
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
