SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(MP) 1352

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Hariram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 1184-2014
Decided On : 29-09-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :M. Shafiqullah, Advocate
For the Respondents: G.P. Patel, Standing Counsel

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Railways Act, 1989, specifically in determining the liability of the Railways in cases of accidental falling from a train as an untoward incident and establishing the status of the deceased as a bonafide passenger.

Headnote:

Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Compensation - Section 16, 23 - Railways Act, 1989 - Section 123(c)(2), 124, 124A - [The judgment discusses the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989, specifically focusing on Section 16 and 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, and Section 123(c)(2), 124, and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these sections, particularly in establishing the deceased as a bonafide passenger and the liability of the Railways in cases of accidental falling from a train as an untoward incident.]

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a claim for compensation in lieu of the death of a passenger who fell from a crowded train and died. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, drawing a presumption that the deceased was run over by a train while crossing railway track.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died due to accidental falling from the train, which constituted an untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with 7.5% interest.

Issues: The issues included establishing the deceased as a bonafide passenger, determining the cause of death, ascertaining the claimants as the only dependents, and examining the liability of the Railways under the exemption clause of the Railways Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died due to accidental falling from the train, which constituted an untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal's presumption that the deceased was run over by a train while crossing railway track was deemed unsustainable.

Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal was set aside, and the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with 7.5% interest.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Yadav, J.:-

With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1987 Act') is directed against the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. OA/IIU/2010/0001; whereby, claim application filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 16 of the 1987 Act for compensation in lieu of death of their son Nirbhay Singh has been rejected.

3. Facts adverted to before the Tribunal, as borne out from impugned order, are that Nirbhay Singh, son of appellants on 05.09.2009 while traveling ex-Bina to Janshi by Dakshin Express died in an untoward incident as he fell down from the general coach of the train which was over-crowded and was compelled to stand near the door of the coach. The dead body was found between Agasaud and Karonda stations. General Railway Police, Bhangarh registered a case vide Merg No. 28/2009 and conducted Naksha Panchayatnama and the post-mortem was done at District Civil Hospital, Bina.

4. Appellants/claimants filed a claim for compensation in lieu of death of Nirbhay Singh which as per them was due to untoward incident. In support of claim, appellants had filed the following documents namely : Merg Intimation-Exhibit A/1, Naksha Panchayatnama-Exhibit A/2, Application for Post Mortem-Exhibit A/3, Post Mortem Report-Exhibit A/4, Ration Card-Exhibit A/6), Voter ID card of the deceased-Exhibit A/7 and Mark Sheet of the deceased-Exhibit A/8.

5. Respondent-Railways in the written statement, while not disputing that the deceased was travelling in an unknown train and by standing at the gate of the coach had fallen down resulting in his death, however, stated that it was due to his own negligence that he died by standing at the door of the coach and that due to his own negligence, the Railway cannot be held liable for compensation.

6. On the basis of rival contentions Tribunal framed following issues :

1. Whether the applicant proves that the deceased was traveling as bonafide passenger of the train at the time of occurrence of the untoward incident?

2. Whether the applicant proves that the death of the deceased was caused due to accidental fall as defined under Sec. 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the applicant are the only dependants of the deceased to receive the compensation as claimed?

4. Whether the respondent Railway is protected under the exemption clause to Sec. 124A of the Railways Act and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants?

5. Relief & Costs?

7. The Tribunal on a finding that there being no direct evidence of the deceased having traveling in the train declined to accept the plea that the death of Nirbhay Singh was due to untoward incident. Instead the Tribunal drew a presumption that the deceased was run over by a train while crossing railway track.

8. These findings have been questioned by the appellants. It is urged that it is clear from the written statement filed by the respondent-Railways that they have admitted that the deceased having travelled in an unknown train had fallen down which resulted in his death. Referring to Exhibit Annexure A/2-Naksha Panchayatnama conducted at the place of incident, it is contended that there is clear mention that the deceased had fallen down from the running train. It is urged that the Tribunal grossly erred in drawing a presumption that he was run over by a train while crossing railway track. It is urged that Railways having failed to establish that the deceased was a resident of a place where the accident occurred, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is a piece of fiction that he was run over by a train while crossing railway track.

9. Naksha Panchayatnama-Exhibit A/2 records:

10. Furthermore, a communication dated 29.03.2010 entered into between the Authorities also reveals that death of Nirbhay Singh was due to accidental falling from the train. It records :

11. The said r










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top