Before Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench Coram: Shri. Vinay Goel, Member (Judicial)

Shri. Raj Kumar Manocha, Member (Technical)

CASE No. OA(IIu)/ADI/ 2020/0024 Date of Institution: 30.12.2019 Date of Decision: 11.06.2024

1. Najimuddin Gyasuddin Malek, deleted as died on 03.11.2021.

(Father of the deceased)

2. Sahedabanu Najimuddin Malek, Aged 58 years.

(Mother the deceased)

Reiding at: Jadu Pole Bandh Mahadev, Mahmedabad, Kheda, Gujarat-387130. ….…. Applicants VERSUS Union of India Through General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai. ………. Respondent Mr. N.R. Kapade, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.

Ms. R.T. Jain, on behalf of Mr. J.H. Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

CLAIM FOR Rs. 8,00,000/-

Judgment

Through this Judgment an Application filed under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 would be adjudicated the Applicants pray for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation on account of alleged death of Ilsa (Gosia) Najimudin Malek, aged 18 years (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in an alleged untoward incident during alleged train journey, being dependents of the deceased.

2. It is the case of the Applicants that, the deceased had gone to college at Nadiad and while returning on 26.09.2019 she was coming from Nadiad to Mahemdabad Kheda station (for short ‘MHD’) by travelling in Memu train. She accidentally fell down from Memu train at Platform no.2 of MHD station, due to which she sustained serious injuries on head and whole body. She thereafter was lying in injured condition and tried to get up from the Up track, meanwhile Up line train dashed her due to which she died on the spot. It is further pleaded that on the day of incident the deceased was having MST bearing no. U-25991529 along with I-Card no. U-25961364. In this consequence, the deceased was a bonafide passenger and she met with untoward incident during journey hence, the Applicants are entitled to get compensation from the Respondent Railway.

3. The Respondent Railway Administration has contested the claim of the Applicants by filing the written statement along with the DRM Report, wherein apart from denying all the averments, it is contended that the deceased was dashed and run over by train no. 17017 while she was going to platform no.3 by crossing track even though, foot over bridge was available at MHD station. Hence, it is submitted that the present case does not fall within the ambit of untoward incident and the Applicants are not entitled the compensation and the claim may be dismissed.

4. Crux of DRM Report: “घटना के ्ቚ्ቓ्ቌ सा्ቌी सवारी गाड़ी सं. 17017 (राजकोट-ससकंदराबाद ए्ቍ.) के लोको पायलट तथा महेमदाबाद ्቗ेशन पर तैनात सफाई कममचारी नं राजेश के. ससंधा के बयान दजम सकये गए, सजसमें दोनो ंके ्ቛारा बताया गया सक मृतक लड़की ्ቜेटफोमम नं. 03 से लाइन ्ቅॉस कर ्ቜेटफोमम नं. 02 पर चढ़ रही थी उसी दौरान सवारी गाड़ी सं. 17017 ्वू पासीगं हो रही थी और ्ቜेटफामम नं. 02 पर मृतक लड़की चढ़ नही ंपाई और उ्ሹ गाड़ी के इंजन से टकराने से रन ओवर हो गई. जांच के दौरान मृतक लड़की के पास से रेल या्ऴा संबंसधत सीजन पास नं. U- 25991529 (महेमदाबाद से नसियाद एवं नसियाद से महेमदाबाद तक) का पाया गया, अतः: मृतक लड़की रेल या्ऴी थी. महेमदाबाद रेलवे ्቗ेशन पर ओवर सिज होने के बावजूद मृतक लड़की के ्ቛारा रेलवे लाइन ्ቅॉस करने की लापरवाही के कारण उ्ሹ घटना घसटत हुई है. ”

5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties and material made available on record, following issues were framed:

ISSUES:

1. Whether deceased was travelling on a valid Railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?

2. Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to fall from passenger carrying train, suffered injuries and died as a result thereof and the present case is covered under the definition of Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased as mentioned in Para-15 and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application?

4. Relief ?

6. Applicants’ Evidence: Applicant no.2 Sahe