Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.
NEELAM RANI AND OTHERS - Appellants
VS.
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
FAO No. 8856 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-12-2016
Railways Act - Untoward Incident - 123(c)(2), 124-A - The court reversed the findings of the Tribunal and decided in favor of the claimants, holding that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and the incident was an untoward incident involving Railways. The court directed the respondent to pay compensation to the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased and his daughter were traveling by train. The deceased fell from the train and was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital. The claim application filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court reversed the findings of the Tribunal, holding that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and the incident was an untoward incident involving Railways. The court directed the respondent to pay compensation to the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger of the train at the time of the incident? 2. Whether the incident is covered within the ambit of 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act? 3. Whether the applicants are only dependents of the deceased? 4. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and the incident was an untoward incident involving Railways, reversing the findings of the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the application, directing the respondent to pay compensation to the appellants.
KULDIP SINGH, J.
1. This is the first appeal filed against the judgment dated 10.07.2014 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal) vide which the claim application filed by the claimants (appellants herein) was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of this case are that Harish Kumar son of Chaman Lal alongwith with his elder daughter Poonam, had gone to visit his daughter at Amritsar on account of Rakhi festival. It comes out that while coming back to Jagadhri, Harish Kumar and Poonam, who was stated to be carrying a minor child in her lap, came from Amritsar to Jalandhar by Bus. As per the version of Poonam they purchased a computerized ticket for two persons at Jalandhar railway station and boarded the Chattisgarh Express for Jagadhri. When the train reached near Jagadhri workshop railway station, Harish Kumar went near the gate of the coach, the train took a jerk and Harish Kumar accidentally fell from the train. The train was immediately stopped. Her daughter Poonam immediately alighted and arranged for the ambulance and took her father to Railway Hospital, Jagadhari in ambulance where Harish Kumar was declared dead by the doctors. It is stated that the ticket was lost in the accident.
3. The respondents have stated that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger as no ticket was produced by the applicant. No such alleged accident resulting in death of Harish Kumar took place within the meaning of section 123 of the Railways act, 1989 (for short “the Act”)
4. From the pleadings the following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger of train at the time of incident ?
(2) Whether the incident is covered within the ambit of 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act?
(3) Whether the applicants is/are only dependents of the deceased?
(4) Relief.
5. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that no ticket was found on the person of the deceased nor produced by the appellants, therefore, the deceased was not the bona-fide passenger of the train at the time of alleged incident. The Tribunal also relied upon the statement of a Railway Guard namely Vinod Kumar, to hold that in fact the deceased-Harish Kumar had jumped from the running train when the train was at the speed of 20 -25 kilometres. Therefore, it is a self inflicted injury within the meaning of 124 (A) of the Act. Hence, the claim petition of the applicant was dismissed by the Tribunal
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the file.
7. First of all, this Court is to determine as to whether it was an untoward incident involving Railways. The evidence of the both the parties show that the fall of Harish Kumar from train and consequent receipt of injuries are not disputed. However, there is a small variation in the version. According to the appellants, Harish Kumar (deceased) was standing near the door of the coach and due to sudden jerk, he fell down from the train near Jagadhari workshop railway station. However, the Railway Guard-Vinod Kumar has maintained that the deceased had jump from the train when it was at a speed of 20-25 kilometer per hour. The report of the Railway Guard makes it clear that according to him the deceased had jumped from the train and was run over by the train. He himself had stopped the train by applying the pressure brakes. The deceased was removed to the Railway Hospital, Jagadhri where he was declared as dead on arrival
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was travelling in Coach No. 22 and the Railway Guard was in Coach No. 24. Poonam (AW-8), the daughter of Harish Kumar (deceased) while appearing in witness box has also affirmed the said fact. She herself did not see the accident and stated that she was informed by the co-passengers.
9. I am of the view that the statement of Railway Guard-Vinod Kumar that the deceased jumped from the train and that he saw him jumping from the train, appears to be little exagger
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
