Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 229
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Swaraswati Haloi & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
MFA 190/2018
Decided On : 17-03-2020
Md. S Islam, for the Appellant; Mr. B. Sarma, SC, NF Rly, for the Respondent
The judgment established the principle that in cases of railway accidents, the court will consider the actions of the deceased and the presence of a valid railway ticket to determine eligibility for compensation.
Headnote:
Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Compensation - Railways Act, 1989, Section 124A - Self inflicted injury
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a claim for compensation arising from the death of Barun Haloi in a railway untoward incident. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, citing that the accident was a result of willful negligent act of the deceased, covered under self inflicted injury as per section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's death was attributable to self inflicted injury as per section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the absence of a valid railway ticket was of no consequence.
Issues: The issues included whether the victim was a bona fide passenger, whether the victim had died in an untoward incident, and whether the applicant was entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence and concluded that the deceased's actions led to the accident, and the absence of a valid railway ticket indicated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 25 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order and award dated 09.07.2018, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim Application No. OAIIu/GHY/2015/0075, thereby dismissing the claim of the appellants for compensation arising out of death of Late Barun Haloi, the predecessor- in- interest of the appellants in allegedly Railway untoward incident that had occurred on 24.04.2014.
3. As per the claim petition, on 24.04.2018, Barun Haloi, who was the husband of the appellant No.1 and the father of the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 along with one Sanjit Das and his two sons (appellant nos. 2 and 3) had boarded the Down Sifung passenger train from Guwahati. It is projected that the deceased after coming out from the toilet, was washing his hands and face by standing in front of the wash- basin and that due to heavy jerking, he slipped and fell from the said train at Ghagrapar Railway Station and he was run over by the 12424 Up Rajdhani Express and he died having suffered grievous head and multiple other injuries. It was projected that the railway ticket was lost in the incident.
4. The respondent had contested the claim by filing written statement and they had denied any liability arising out of the said accident. It was claimed that the train was stationary and that the deceased had died because of his own criminal act of waking through railway track.
5. In support of their stand, the appellants had filed the following documents, viz., certified copy of Memo (Exbt.A-1); certified copy of post mortem report (Exbt.A-2); certified copy of inquest report (Exbt.A-3); and certified copy of final report (Exbt.A-4). The order and award discloses that the respondent had filed the following documents, viz., DRM report along with photocopy of the Memo, true copy of Station Masters diary, photocopy of inquest report, final report and photo of deceased, etc. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the victim was a bona fide passenger?
2. Whether the victim had died in an untoward incident?
3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what sum?
4. Relief & costs?
6. In support of the claim, the appellants had examined 3 (three) witnesses, viz. (1) the appellant, Sarswati Haloi (AW-1), (2) Jyotish Haloi (AW-2) and (3) Sanjit Das (AW- 3). It may be mentioned herein that Hiteswar Haloi, the appellant No.2 had also submitted his evidence-on-affidavit as AW-2, but there is no record of his cross-examination and as per order dated 20.03.2018, it has been recorded that the counsel for the appellants had stated that no further evidence is required and as such the oral evidence of the appellants evidence was closed. Accordingly, the evidence of the said witness was not considered by the learned Tribunal. The following documents were exhibited by the appellants, (1) Certified copy of FIR and ejahar of Rangia GRPS UD Case No.31/2014 (Exbt-1), (2) Certified copy of Postmortem Report (Exbt-2), (3) Certified copy of Inquest Report dated 24.04.2014 (Exbt-3), (4) Certified copy of Final Report dated 30.06.2014 (Exbt-4).
7. All the four issues were taken up together. The learned Tribunal relied on the DRM Report and formed an opinion that the deceased had got down at the other side of the platform and was carelessly trying to cross the railway track when the incoming Rajdhani Express knocked him down and he got run over by the said train. The learned Tribunal disbelieved that the deceased fell down from the platform of a train by holding that one cannot fall down from a stationary train and secondly, the gap between the two lines was big enough for any passenger to fall on the other track beyond the stationary train unless the victim himself trespasses on the other track. Hence,
