The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and its application to the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, 'the Act'), the appellants/claimants have assailed judgment dated 04.02.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in Case No. OA/II(u)/DLI/156/2018, whereby the claim application filed by them was dismissed.

2. Mr. Rajan Sood, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the claim application arose out of incident dated 10.02.2018, which occurred at platform No.4 of Shahdara Railway Station and is covered under 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. Learned counsel has referred to the DRM Report to submit that neither the Guard (Ram Niwas) nor the Loco Pilot of train No.64414 i.e., the train which allegedly hit the deceased, noticed the incident in question. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Station Master Memo as well as DD No.6PP wherein it is recorded that one person was injured by a train at platform No.4, Shahdara. Reference is also made to the MLC and Site Plan. On strength of the aforesaid documents, it is contended that the Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that the deceased was injured while crossing railway tracks.

3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contested the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

5. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the death of the deceased had occurred in an untoward incident or not.

6. Reportedly, the deceased was holder of a Monthly Season Ticket (in short, 'MST') which was valid from 27.08.2017 to 26.02.2018. The MST was recovered from the person of the deceased and the same was verified to be genuine and valid.

7. The records reveal that the incident had taken place between 09:00 to 09:10 a.m. A copy of Daily Copy Rojnamcha (in short, 'DCR') Register has been placed on record. As per entry recorded at serial No.19 thereof at 09:30 a.m., one Constable Pankaj Kumar/RPF reported that a person was waiting at platform No.4 at about 09:30 a.m. and after hearing an announcement that train No.74022 had arrived at platform No.2, that person got down from platform No.4 and crossed railway tracks to get to platform No.2. In the process of crossing the railway tracks, he was hit by an incoming train i.e., train No.64414 and sustained severe injuries.

8. Constable Pankaj Kumar was examined as CW-1 before the Tribunal. He reiterated that on 10.02.2018, when he was patrolling on duty at platform No.4, there was an announcement that Shamli Passenger Train was arriving at platform No.2. At that time, a person (deceased) stepped down from platform No.4 to go to platform No.2/3. However, as he attempted to cross railway tracks, he was hit by train No. 64414 which was arriving at platform No.3, and the same resulted in severe injuries to him.

Constable Pankaj Kumar is an eye-witness to the incident and his presence is also corroborated by the entry recorded in the DCR Register on the date of the incident itself, where complete facts are mentioned. It is evident from the statement of Constable Pankaj Kumar that the injuries to the deceased occurred while he was crossing railway tracks and not while he was trying to board a train as alleged in the claim petition. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the presence of Constable Pankaj Kumar at the site of incident was not even disputed on behalf of the appellants.

9. Accordingly, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.