206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-7755-2015 Date of decision : 07.02.2025 RAVINDER SINGH ....Appellant Versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate for respondent/UOI.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Insured/claimant is in appeal aggrieved of the award dated

12.08.2015 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.

2. Claim petition was filed by the appellant claiming that on 06.11.2012 he purchased ticket to travel from Nawan Railway Station to Mahendergarh. While boarding passenger train, he fell down due to heavy rush and sustained injuries. His left leg was amputated near hip and paw of right leg was also cut down by the train. He thus claims that he suffered injuries which led to 100% disability in an untoward incident while travelling on train having a railway ticket and is thus entitled for compensation.

3. Claim was resisted by the respondent/UOI claiming that the injured never purchased any railway ticket and was thus not a bona fide passenger. It was further claimed that the injury suffered by the claimant was on account of his own negligence and thus, the claim petition be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the injured/applicant was a bonafide passenger of train at the time of incident?

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

3. What are the scheduled and non-scheduled injuries sustained by the applicant/injured?

4. Relief?

5. While returning finding on issue No.1, Tribunal held that the statement made by claimant was not trustworthy. The ticket though was produced but after much delay. Delay in producing the ticket was in order to arrange a fake ticket. Thus, the claimant was not a bona fide passenger being a traveller without a ticket.

6. On issue No.2 Tribunal relied upon statement of guard of the train who deposed as under :

“I was on duty as guard in the passenger train no.54810 from Chuk railway station to Rewari on 6.11.2012. I in a passenger train no.54810 went from Chuk railway station at the right time. Passenger train no.54810 reached at 12:50 at Nawan Halt and proceeded at 12:51. When passenger train proceeded from Nawan railway station and 3-4 train coach left the station than a person came on bike with his friend and suddenly came towards train and said person slipped from train while boarding in the train:

7. Answering issue No.1 and 2 against the claimant, the claim petition was dismissed.

8. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is in the teeth of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572. The observation made w.r.t. arrangement of fake ticket is conjectural and cannot be sustained. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in misreading the statement of guard of the train. Rather the statement itself proves that the claimant sustained injury in an untoward incident. In the absence of there being any intent on part of the claimant to take his own life, the accident would fall within the ambit of ‘untoward incident’ as contemplated under Section 123-A of the Railways Act.

9. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent/UOI submits that delay on part of the claimant to produce the ticket is fatal to his case. Had he been in possession of the ticket, he would have produced the same at the first instance. Thus, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Tribunal w.r.t. the claimant being not a bona fide passenger. She further submits that from the reading of the statement made by RW-1 Hem Raj the Duty Guard, it is evident that the claimant tried to board while train was on the move. Thus the injuries sustained by the claimant are owing to his own negligence. She thus submits that the appeal deserves to be dismi