F.A.O. No. 2911 of 2013 (O&M)

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No. 2911 of 2013 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION: 30.5.2013

Union of India

..........Petitioner

Versus

Malti Devi

..........Respondent

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:-

Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate

for the appellant.

****

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

The present appeal has been filed by Union of India to

challenge award dated 31.12.2012 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal,

Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh vide which the claimant has been awarded

compensation to the tune of ` 4 lacs on account of death of her son,

namely, Mani Bhushan.

Briefly the facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by

Malti Devi, the mother of deceased on account of death of her young son

aged about 25 years, who died in an untoward incident while traveling in a

train. The deceased was working as a labourer in a Plywood Factory at

Yamuna Nagar. On 11.10.2010, he was going to his home town along with

his friend Muntoon and purchased a railway ticked bearing No. 05164831

from Jagadhri to Chakia and boarded in general class compartment of

Jannayak Express train from Jagadhri. Due to heavy rush in the train at the

F.A.O. No. 2911 of 2013 (O&M)

(2)

time of boarding, the friend of deceased entered in the train, however, the

deceased was standing near the door of the compartment. Due to jerk and

jolt coupled with the pull and push of the passengers in the train, the

deceased accidentally fell down from the train near KM No. 208/3-5

between railway stations Jagadhri and Kalanaur and sustained serious,

grievous and multiple injuries on the vital parts of his body and succumbed

to the injuries.

The claim petition was filed by the mother being dependent

upon the deceased. The claim petition was contested by the Railway

Department by filing written statement, wherein, various objections were

raised on the ground of maintainability of the claim petition. The Railway

Department has contested the claim petition mainly on the ground that the

claimant was not entitled for compensation as the incident does not come

within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the

Railway Act. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

1.

Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time

of incident?

2.

Whether the incident is covered within ambit of Section 123 (c)

(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railway Act?

3.

Whether the applicant(s) is/are the sole dependent(s) of the

deceased?

4.

Relief.

On appreciation of evidence and by considering the

contentions of both the parties, the claim petition was allowed and claimant

was held entitled for compensation of ` 4 lacs along with interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of filling of claim petition i.e. 7.2.2011 till the

date of award dated 31.12.2012. The Railway Department was allowed 60

F.A.O. No. 2911 of 2013 (O&M)

(3)

days time to make payment of the amount of compensation failing which,

the claimant shall be entitled to further interest @ 9% per annum from

1.1.2013 till realization of the same.

The present appeal has been filed only on the ground that the

falling of the deceased from the train cannot be considered as untoward

incident and dead body of the deceased was found far from railway track

and it cannot be even presumed that he was traveling in a train. Learned

counsel for the appellant also contends that the incident is not covered

under the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the

Railway Act.

Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant

and have also perused the impugned award as well as other documents

available on file.

The impugned award is based not only on oral statement but

other evidence also. A categoric finding has been recorded that the

deceased was traveling in the train and had died after falling down from the

train. During course of inquest proceedings, the pers