Jai Pal vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Jai Pal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Table of Content
1. submission of appellant and respondent (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. incident details and passenger status (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's conclusion on 'untoward incident' (Para 8 , 10)
4. self-inflicted injury principle (Para 9)
5. conclusion and remand for compensation (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as `the Act'), the appellants/claimants have assailed the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi whereby the claim application filed by them was dismissed.

2. Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that vide the impugned order, though Smt. Krishna Devi (the deceased) was held to be a bona fide passenger, however the Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that the incident was not an `untoward incident'.

3. Per contra, Mr. Pavan Narang, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant No. 1 (husband of the deceased) had appeared as a witness and gave a statement which was cont