Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 30
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - DELHI
Mr. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, CJ, Mr. MUKESH NIGAM, J
SH ANAND PRAKASH & ORS – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER – Respondent
OA (II u)/DLI/294/2024
Sh. A.K Goyal, counsel for the applicant through hybrid mode. Sh. Avnish Singh, counsel for the respondent.
The court affirmed that dependents of a deceased bonafide passenger are entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, with protective measures for disbursement.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 123(b) - Claim for compensation due to death in an untoward incident - Respondent Railway admitted liability for the incident leading to the death of the deceased, a bonafide passenger - The applicants, being dependents, are entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of incident. (Paras 1, 9, 10)
(B) Compensation - The Tribunal directed the disbursement of the awarded amount in a manner that protects the interests of the claimants, particularly considering factors such as illiteracy and potential exploitation. (Paras 12, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The deceased fell between the platform and the train while boarding due to confusion regarding the train's platform, leading to her death. The Railway admitted the claim and acknowledged the deceased as a bonafide passenger.
Findings of Court:
The applicants are entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/- with 9% interest for the death of the deceased.
Issues: The main issues were the dependency of the applicants on the deceased and the amount of compensation entitled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicants are dependents under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act and entitled to compensation, emphasizing the need for protective measures in disbursing the awarded amount.
Result: Claim application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident leading to death (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. admission of liability (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. verification of ticket (Para 5) |
| 4. dependents defined (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. compensation awarded (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman (Oral) :-
1. This is the one case where the respondent Railway by filing a very short reply has accepted the case of the applicants. Furthermore, today, Sh. Avnish Singh, appearing for the respondent, at the outset, has very fairly stated that this case is to be allowed. Having noted the broad features of the case, we proceed to note down the brief facts, i.e the case of the applicant and the stand of the respondent.
2. Smt. Brij Mohani, W/o Sh. Anand Prakash, applicant No. 1 and mother of Shivank and Shivansh, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 along with her husband on 21st January 2024 bought a railway journey ticket bearing number UEQ-64570971 for undertaking a journey from Aishbagh, Lucknow to Tulsipur. It is case of the applicants that there was a lot of confusion as to on which platform, the rake of train No. 15010 was to be placed. Accordingly, they reached on 22nd January 2024 at 20:15 hrs at the railway station where the Enquiry Office disclosed that the train will arrive at platform No. 6 while the mobile App showed the status of the train to be arriving at platform No. 5. It was further stated by the applicants that the general bogie, as per the platform information, was to be placed immediately next to the rail engine. The stoppage of the train was one minute and in a hurry to catch the train, when Smt. Brij Mohani (hereinafter called ‘deceased’) was boarding the train, her foot slipped and she fell in between the platform and the train and suffered injuries. She was taken in an ambulance to Rani Laxmi Bai Hospital in Rajaji Puram, Lucknow where she was declared dead on 22nd January 24 at 10:50 PM.
3. The respondent Railway filed a very short reply consisting of four paragraphs.The relevant para No. 2 is a part of our order dated 19th November 2024. The said order dated 19th November 2024 is reproduced below:-
“I find from the records that the written statement along with report DRM has already been filed. The Court Master is directed to assign exhibit R-1 to the report of DRM. Sh. Avnish Singh has read Para 2 and Para 4 of the written statement to contend that the respondent Railway has admitted the claim of the applicants, and therefore, the liability of the respondent to pay interest be kept in abeyance from today onwards. Para 2 and Para 4 of the written statement are reproduced below:-
“2. That the contents of Part II of Para 1 sub-Para A to K are admitted. As per the DRM report, it has been obtained that on 22.01.2024, the applicant along with his wife bought ticket no. UEQ-64570971 to travel from Aishbagh to Tulsipur. When they reached to catch train no. 15010 at around 20:50, on the inquiry displaying the arriving platform of train no 15010 was showed as Platform no. 6, whereas on checking by mobile, it was found that the train was arriving at Platform no. 5. When the train arrived they found that the general coach was attached to the back side, whereas on the platform the displayed board showed that the general coach was behind the engine. Then in that situation, they started going towards the general coach, since the train had a stoppage of 1 minute, so they were boarding in the sleeper coach, during which his wife's foot slipped and she fell down between the platform and the track.
4. Therefore, in view of abovesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Railway Administration may be exempted from the liabilities of the interest from the date of the incident i.e. 22.01.2024, as the Railway Administration is accepting the claim application.”
None had appeared for the applicant on 12th September 2024, 10th October 2024 and 05th November 2024. Today also, there is no appearance on behalf of the applicants. Considering that the
