IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.11.2025 The Station Master Amritsar Railway Station, Amritsar ...... Appellant versus Shilna K. and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. B.S. Kanwar, Senior Panel Counsel for the applicant-appellant.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

CM-1971-C-2024 This is an application for condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 86 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

RSA-533-2024

1. Defendants are in second appeal. For convenience, parties are being referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. appellants as defendants and respondents as plaintiffs.

2. Respondents/Plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Plaintiffs) preferred a suit for damages claiming therein that deceased Abhilash Karaz Kandi (KK) was in military service under 306 Field Regiment. The unit of 306 Field Regiment booked Military Special Train VP-593 from Odhaniya Chacha (OCH) to Amritsar (ASR). As per the case of the plaintiffs on 27.08.2015, Abhilash K.K boarded special train VP-593 from Odhaniya Chacha. On 29.08.2015 at about 5:00 a.m., he reached Amritsar Railway Station including his unit where necessary intimation was given to Railway officials regarding unloading of the special train VP-593 as train was halted at ramp near station and engine of the train was disconnected, but the main power line was not disconnected and on instruction of yard master the unloading of the train started at 7:00 a.m. Abhilash KK along with other persons were unloading the iron pipes from the train and while unloading Abhilash KK got electric shock due to touching of iron pipes with high voltage wires installed in the railway yards, because of which he received severe burns and succumbed to his injuries on 07.09.2015. At the time of booking special train no. VP-593 with defendant no.1, assurance was given to the unit to be provided with all the necessary facilities and safe passage and further assurance was given that safety precautions would be taken but there was gross negligence on the part of defendant railways. Hence, the suit.

3. Suit was contested by defendants claiming that the suit was not maintainable, taking preliminary objections regarding suppression of material facts, cause of action and maintainability. On merits, it is averred that there was no information or instruction to defendant no. 5 regarding the unloading, necessary facilities, safe passage and further assurance of safety precautions has no relevance. Also, as no relief against the replying defendants has been claimed, hence, the present suit against the defendants is required to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings, the Court of First Instance framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages, as prayed for?

OPP.

2. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

3. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?

4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Relief.”

5. While deciding issue No.1, Trial Court found that no document was produced by the plaintiffs to prove the fact that the act of negligence is attributable to the defendants. Neither any record has been placed by plaintiff from railway authorities or from military authorities to prove that the train was at its proper unloading area when the was incident took place. Plaintiff was not able to discharge the onus upon them, accordingly this issue was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

Thus, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2019.

6. In appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, Lower Appellate Court found that it was the duty of the railway authorities to place the train at its proper unloading area and there is no fault at the part of the deceased, who lost his precious life. Further, as per evide