IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

228 Date of decision : 07.02.2025 Nirmala Devi and others ...... Appellants versus Union of India ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Nain, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate for the respondent-UOI.

****

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 13.12.2017 by which the Tribunal dismissed the claim filed by the appellants/applicants, who are the widower, parents and minor children of the deceased.

2. The facts of the case are that on 16.07.2014, the deceased was going from Narwana to Ghaso by train No. 54044 after purchasing a valid journey ticket. When the deceased boarded the train, there was a huge rush and due to which she fell down from the running train on platform no. 2 of railway station, Narwana. She suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot.

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 no ticket was recovered from her during jamatalashi.

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 death of the deceased has occurred in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act?

3. Whether the applicant(s) is/are the sole dependent(s) of the deceased?

4. Relief.”

5. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that no ticket was recovered, hence she would not be a bonafide passenger.

6. The appellants adduced evidence by way of affidavit of AW-1, widower of the deceased. She on oath stated that the deceased purchased ticket and was a bonafide passenger.

7. The counsel appearing for the appellants while assailing the impugned order submits that Tribunal disbelieved the testimony of AW- 1, on the ground that no traveling ticket was found from the place of the incident. The Counsel while referring to the law laid down by Apex Court in Union of India vs Rina Devi, (2019) SCC 572 has contended that the appellants cannot be non-suited simply because the travelling ticket was not found from the place of the incident by the concerned officials once claimant has discharged initial burden.

8. The Counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India has placed reliance on the testimony of RW-1, who was an eye-witness to the incident. It is proved from his testimony that the deceased was trying to board the moving train. The act of boarding a moving train by the deceased has been held to be criminal negligence and self-inflicted injury by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Santosh and others vs.

Union of India reported as 2013 ACJ 381

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

10. 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)

11. After considering the aforesaid precedents, this court dealt the issue elaborately in the case of Sandeep Narula and ors v. Union of India bearing FAO No. 27