Negligence of railway authorities leading to a death in a railway accident falls within the scope of the Railways Act, allowing for compensation to be awarded.

MOHINDER PAL, J. - The claimants widow, minor daughter and father of the deceased Sukhwinder Singh filed a claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30 Lacs from the respondent on account of death of said Sukhwinder Singh in the railway accident alleged to have taken place on 12.7.2006.

2. Case of the petitioners as stated in the claim application is that on 12.7.2006, Sukhwinder Singh was travelling in train No.626-A for journey from Sunam to Gurne. After alighting from the train at Railway Station, Gurne, he moved for his Village Chotian on Kachha path. In the railway premises i.e. yard of Railway Station, Gurne, electricity pole was fixed and due to slip of foot, Sukhwinder Singh fell down on the wires of electric pole and died due to the electric shock. The death of the deceased was due to the negligence on the part of the railway authorities.

3. After notice, railways have contested the claim application with the preliminary objections regarding maintainability and the claim being highly exaggerated. It has been submitted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger nor holding valid ticket or document to travel in the train. On merits, it was averred that the claimants have failed to produce any document to prove the relationship with the deceased and have denied that no such incident had taken place. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short - `the Tribunal') framed following issues:-

“1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as alleged, in the train in question at the time of accident?

2. Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of Section 123(a) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act?

3. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased?

4. Relief”

4. Issues No.1 and 2 were taken up together to decide by recording a finding that the untoward incident vide which the deceased died due to the electric shock was not covered under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short -`the Act') and accordingly the claim was declined by dismissing the application. Aggrieved from this order of the Tribunal, the claimants have come in appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, who argued that admittedly Sukhwinder Singh died due to the electric shock. The pole and the transformer supplying the electricity was installed in the railway premises. The field which was fenced by the barbed wire was also belonging to the railway authorities and it was duty of the Railway to maintain and keep the electric pole in a perfect condition. As they were negligent in their duty and that Sukhwinder Singh received electric shock and died, the claimants were entitled to the compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has argued that the claim application was liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that it was not covered under the definition of Section 123 of the Act. It is further contended that Sukhwinder Singh had deliberately chosen a wrong path to go to his village and as he himself was negligent, the Railway was not at all liable to pay the compensation. He laid emphasis on the point that as per site plan, the field around which the barbed wire has been fixed was belonging to one Dhanna Singh and as this property was not part of the Railway, the respondent was not liable to pay the compensation.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. Section 123 of the Act defines untoward incident as follows:-

“123. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in Section 124;

(b) xx xx xx xx

(c) “untoward incident” means -

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson