The interpretation of the definition of untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the rejection of self-negligence as a contributing factor in the context of claiming compensation.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

CM APPL. 36510/2022

1. By way of present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellants seek condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeal.

2. It is noted that the instant appeal was filed by the appellants on 18.08.2022, assailing judgment dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi. As per claims, the appellants were prevented from filing the appeal before this Court in due time on account of Covid-19 pandemic and their having first assailed judgment dated 12.07.2021 before the Uttarakhand High Court on advice from their counsel. After having withdrawn their petition before the Uttarakhand High Court with liberty to approach appropriate appellate forum, the appellants had statedly attempted to engage a counsel in Delhi to file the present appeal but the same took time as they got occupied working for livelihood outside Delhi.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Application is disposed of.

FAO 214/2022 and CM APPL. 36511/2022

5. By way of present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants have assailed judgment dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Claim Application No. OA-II(u)/DLI/2020/116 whereby their claim application seeking death compensation was dismissed.

6. Briefly stated, the facts as noted by the Tribunal, are that the claim application was filed by the wife and children (appellants No. 1-5) of Aneesh (deceased), stating that the deceased was a retired Railway employee having a Second-Class Free Railway Pass bearing No.429002. The pass authorized him to travel from Dehradun to Ajmer and was valid from 04.10.2018 to 03.03.2019. On 04.10.2018, while the deceased was travelling on the UP Patliputra Express for going from Roorkee Railway Station to Saharanpur Railway Station, he fell from the train and received grievous injuries. He was taken to CMI Hospital, Roorkee for treatment from where he was referred to higher centre. However, during the treatment on 07.10.2018, he expired.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger as he was travelling on a Second-Class Free Railway Pass. It was further contended that the deceased passed away as a result of falling from a moving train, and thus, his death is covered under the definition of untoward incident defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

8. The appeal was contested by the learned counsel for the respondent, who contended that the pass issued to the deceased was not authenticated by the T.T. of the train. It was further submitted that the deceased could not have broken journey at Roorkee as the said pass was valid from Dehradun to Ajmer only. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the DRM Report to submit that the guard and train driver have stated that the deceased got injured while trying to get down from moving train.

9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, including the Tribunal's Record, it is apparent that the appellants and respondent have taken contrary stands. While the appellants/claimants have maintained that the deceased had boarded the train from Roorkee Railway Station, the respondent has taken a stand that the deceased had broken his journey at Roorkee Railway Station which was not mentioned in the pass.

10. The respondent has not denied the fact that the deceased was holding a valid second-class railway pass which authorised him to travel between Dehradun and Ajmer. The appellants have claimed that the deceased boarded the train on the date of the incident and that he fell from UP Patliputra Express Train while it was moving.

11. The incident was reportedly witnessed by an independent witness Mohd. Naumaan (AW-2), who deposed that he was a