IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 Date of decision : 07.02.2025 Isham Singh @ Hisam Singh ...... Appellant versus Union of India ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. S.R. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate for the respondent.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The first appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 19.12.2017 by which the Tribunal dismissed the claim filed by the appellant/applicant, who is the husband of the deceased.

2. The facts of the case are that on 08.04.2015, the deceased along with other village neighbours was coming back from Beas to their village. They purchased different tickets bearing Sr.No. 11428937 to 11428940 from Beas to Kurukshetra and boarded the train from Beas to Kurukshetra and deboarded the train at Ambala Cantt, railway station. When the said train reached Shahbad railway station, the co- passengers got down. While the deceased was in the process of deboarding, the train started moving. The deceased got imbalanced and fell off the train. He came in between the train and the platform. Her both legs and left arm were crushed badly. She was referred to PGI Chandigarh where she scummed to her injuries.

3. The respondent-department filed a written statement contesting the claim holding that no untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, causing the death of the deceased took place. It was further averred that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train as the ticket shown in the claim application is a procured, planted and managed one. It was further averred that the ticket was purchased upto Kurukshetra when the deceased had to get down at Shahbad.

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

“1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train at the time of accident?

2. Whether the incident in question is covered within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section

124-A of the Railways Act?

3. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased?

4. Relief.”

5. The appellants adduced evidence by way of affidavit of AW-1, husband of the deceased. AW-2, Rani Devi, the co-passenger of the deceased was produced in the witness box and was cross examined. The appellant also placed on record fard jamtalashi as Ex. AW- 1/8 and document peshkardagi railway ticket, Ex. AW-1/7. Reliance has also been placed upon MLR placed on record as Ex. AW-1/A.

6. The Counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India contends that a person residing at Shahabad Markanda would not purchase the ticket for Kurukshetra. It was further contended that the deceased became a victim of the incident due to her negligence and the railway administration is not liable for the same.

7. Section 124A deals with liability of Railways to pay compensation to the victims on account of injuries/loss of life suffered owing to untoward incidents and accidents involving Railways. The aforesaid provision came on the statute book by way of Railways Amendment Act, 28 of 1994. The same came up for consideration before Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Jameela and others v. Union of India, 2010 AIR SC 3705, Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.8605 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.32962 of 2018)

8. After considering the aforesaid precedents, this court dealt with the issue elaborately in the case of Sandeep Narula and ors v. Union of India bearing FAO No. 2700 of 2016, wherein the court observed as under:-

"15 In view of above, the following proposition can be culled :

(i) Railway is liable to pay to an injured passenger or to the dependents of a passenger killed in an untoward incident involving railways. The passe