Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.A.KHAN, U.K.DHAON
Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railways
Versus
Sanja Paswan
F.A.F.O. 42 of 2003
Decided On : 03 August 2004
F. A. F. O. 42 Of 2003
Compensation - Railway Accident - The court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's decision to award compensation to the respondent who sustained severe injuries while traveling in a second class compartment of a train, rejecting the railway's argument that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger and was traveling on the roof of the train.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sustained severe injuries in both legs while traveling in a second class compartment of a train, leading to amputation. The railway contested the claim, arguing that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger and was traveling on the roof of the train at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's testimony of traveling inside the compartment and sustaining injuries due to a sudden jerk of the train was credible. It dismissed the railway's argument, noting the lack of evidence and witness testimony to support their claim that the respondent was traveling on the roof of the train.
Issues: The main issue was whether the incident qualified as an untoward incident and whether the respondent was a bona fide passenger of the train.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the respondent's testimony and lack of supporting evidence from the railway to conclude that the incident qualified as an untoward incident and the respondent was entitled to compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's decision to award compensation to the respondent.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 23. 10. 2002 passed by the Railway claims Tribunal, Lucknow, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 by way of compensation to the respondent.
( 2 ) THE case of the respondent in brief had been that he was travelling by Amritsar howrah Express on 17. 9. 2000 with a second class journey ticket. He started his journey from Ambala to Patna on 16. 9. 2000 by purchasing a second class journey ticket. On 17. 9. 2000, when the train was passing near Tilhar Railway station in district Shahjahanpur, the respondent was going to toilet in the railway compartment and fell down from the compartment due to sudden and violent jerk of the train, as a result of which he sustained severe and grievous injuries in both of his legs, which were ultimately amputated. According to him, he lost his journey ticket during the course of the incident in question.
( 3 ) THE appellant Railways filed written statement and contested the claim on the ground that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger of the train in question and the incident does not come within the definition of untoward incident as the respondent was travelling on the roof of the train at the time of accident, which was a criminal act.
( 4 ) THE learned Claims Tribunal framed issues in the case, recorded evidence and after appraisal thereof came to the conclusion that the incident in question comes within the definition of untoward incident and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the award, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal has been filed.
( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record.
( 6 ) THE case of the respondent from the very beginning had been that he was travelling in Amritsar-Howrah Express on 17. 9. 2000 in a second class compartment. He started his journey from Ambala to patna on 16. 9. 2000 and on 17. 9. 2000 when the train was passing near Tilhar Railway station in district Shahjahanpur, he was going to toilet and fell down from the compartment due to sudden and violent jerk of the train, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and ultimately both his legs were amputated.
( 7 ) AS against it, the case of the Railways had been that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger of the train and further he was travelling on the roof of the train and he fell down and report of that fact was made by one of the employees of the Railways and it was recorded in a document. Under these circumstances, the respondent himself was negligent and was liable to be prosecuted under the Railways act and the Railways as such is not liable to pay compensation.
( 8 ) WE have considered this argument of the learned counsel for the Railways and we find no force in it.
( 9 ) IT is said that one Anil Kumar had reported to the Station Master that one passenger dropped and fell down from the roof of the train. It is also said that the respondent himself fell down from the roof of the compartment and got himself injured, which is a criminal act punishable under section 156 of the Railways Act and this incident is not covered within the definition of untoward incident. It may be mentioned that Anil Kumar, Switchman of the Railways had reportedly informed the Station Master, S. D. Khan, who made an entry to that effect in a document on the report of the Switchman, Anil Kumar. Thus this fact as to whether the respondent was travelling in the train aforesaid is not denied. Neither S. D. Khan, Station Master on duty was examined before the Tribunal nor Anil Kumar, Switchman of the Railways has been examined. None of these two relevant and important witnesses have been examined by the Railways to support its case that the respondent was sitting on the roof of the compartment and fell down from there and sustained injuries. There is also no evi
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
