Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3556
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
Pooja - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 6786 of 2016
Decided On : 04-07-2018
Subhash Sachdeva, Adv., S.K. Rana, Adv., Neeraj Madaan, Adv.
The liberal and wider interpretation of the provisions of the Railways Act to ensure compensation for victims of train accidents, irrespective of fault, and the application of the no-fault liability principle under Section 124-A.
Headnote:
Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Validity of Journey Ticket - Sections 123(c), 124-A, 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 - The court held that the deceased was a passenger with a valid pass and the death occurred due to an untoward accident falling under the definition of Section 123(c) and not falling within the exceptions of Section 124-A. The court emphasized the liberal and wider interpretation of the provisions to ensure compensation for victims of train accidents, irrespective of fault, and highlighted the no-fault liability principle under Section 124-A. The court also discussed the burden of proof on the claimants and the railway authorities, emphasizing that the absence of a ticket does not necessarily negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant's father died in a railway accident, and the Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim due to lack of evidence of a valid journey ticket. The claimant argued that her father had purchased a ticket and died due to an untoward accident while trying to board a moving train.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was a passenger with a valid ticket and the death was due to an untoward accident falling under the Railways Act, entitling the claimant to compensation.
Issues: Validity of journey ticket, definition of passenger, burden of proof, and entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The deceased was a passenger with a valid pass, and the death occurred due to an untoward accident falling under the Railways Act, entitling the claimant to compensation. The court emphasized the liberal and wider interpretation of the provisions to ensure compensation for victims of train accidents, irrespective of fault, and highlighted the no-fault liability principle under Section 124-A.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and held the appellant entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the accident, to be paid within two months.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, 1987 Act') is directed against the judgment dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The Tribunal has rejected the claim which was filed by the claimant on account of death of her father, namely, Subhash Chander aged 62 years old.
2. The reasoning as such given by the Tribunal is that there was no cogent, satisfactory and confidence inspiring evidence in support of the claim application that the deceased had purchased a proper and valid journey ticket to travel. The presence of Vikas Kapoor, the nephew who had deposed as AW-2 was doubted. The Jamatalashi had not been submitted and, therefore, in the absence of the ticket found from the body, it was held that he was not a bonafide passenger. It was further held that while trying to catch a fast moving train without purchasing any ticket the deceased met with the accident and died and, therefore, he was held not to be a bonafide passenger.
3. Counsel for the appellant has taken the Court through the record of the case to submit that it was the specific case of the appellant as such that her father had gone to meet his sister in Ludhiana where the incident had taken place at the Railway Station. He had purchased one ticket for the express mail train on 24.12.2011 for his journey from Ludhiana to Jalandhar and gone to platform No.2 to board the Train No.14037, Delhi-Pathankot Express. On account of huge rush while trying to board the train, the deceased fell down from the train and got serious injuries on vital organs of his body. He had been taken to Rama Charitable Hospital, Ludhiana where he succumbed to the injuries. The ticket and cash had been lost during the accident.
4. It is not disputed that a postmortem was also conducted on 25.12.2011 (Ex.A6). A perusal of the same would go on to show that information had been furnished that her father had died in the railway accident and the said report also says that injuries were ante-mortem in nature and it could be in a railway accident. The cause of death as such was heart rupture, ribcage fracture and the right leg fracture which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and were ante-mortem in nature and could be due to railway accident.
5. It is not disputed that report (Ex.A-1) was also given to SHO, GRP that while trying to catch moving Train No.14037 one man had got injured and the injured had been sent to the Civil Hospital by the Punjab Government Ambulance.
6. Even in the defence, evidence of the Railways Surender Kumar Bangar who had deposed as Deputy Station Superintendent, Ludhiana that he was informed by the Guard of Train No.14037 that one person fell down on track while he was trying to catch moving train and got injured at platform No.2 and he had sent a message to GRP, Ludhiana. Similarly, as per affidavit of the Subhash Kumar Saini who was Guard on the said train, the train had reached at Ludhiana at 13:30 and departed at 13:35 after a scheduled stop of 5 minutes. He has deposed that a man had tried to board the moving train after 100 meters and got injured in the process. The deponent had informed the Station Master and the Doctor and RPF. The injured person got injuries due to his own negligence in effort of trying to catch a moving train. He had no idea whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not.
7. The stand of the Railways before the Tribunal was that in an attempt to catch the train the deceased had slipped and fell and no ticket was found during search and therefore, he did not have a valid ticket and, therefore, he is not a bonafide passenger.
8. It is pertinent to notice that railway authorities had also conducted inquiry into the death of the deceased as such and a conclusion had been arrived at that the deceased had died on account of while trying to board the running train. The allegation as such that the luggage and th
