Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Meera Devi vs Union Of India on 2 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1827 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. MEERA DEVI W/O LATE VIJAY YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE VILL. POST DHANOLI P.S. TEH. BAHERI
DIST. DARBHANGA BIHAR (BIHAR)
2. SMT. KANCHAN KUMARI W/O SHRI BABLU
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE POST DHANOLI P.S TEH.
BAHERI DISTT. DARBHANGA BIHAR (BIHAR)
3. SMT. RANJAN KUMARI W/O SHRI NAMAN
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE POST DHANOLI P.S TEH.
BAHERI DISTT. DARBHANGA BIHAR (BIHAR)
4. NEETU KUMARI D/O LATE VIJAY YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
VILLAGE POST DHANOLI P.S TEH. BAHERI DISTT.
DARBHANGA BIHAR (BIHAR)
5. RITESH KUMAR S/O LATE VIJAY YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THORUGH NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN
THEIR MOHTHER SMT. MEENA VILLAGE POST
DHANOLI P.S TEH. BAHERI DISTT. DARBHANGA
BIHAR (BIHAR)
6. REETU KUMARI D/O LATE VIJAY YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THORUGH NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN
THEIR MOHTHER SMT. MEENA VILLAGE POST
DHANOLI P.S TEH. BAHERI DISTT. DARBHANGA
BIHAR (BIHAR)
7. UPENDRA YADAV S/O SHRI BHUVNESHWAR
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE POST DHANOLI P.S
TEH. BAHERI DISTT. DARBHANGA BIHAR
(BIHAR)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 12-02-2024
19:58:17
2
....APPELLANTS
BY SHRI MOHD. SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE )
AND
UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL MANAGER WEST
CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHRISTI KASHYAP - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed by the LRs of deceased Vijay Yadav whose claim for compensation for death during the journey by Superfast Express Train No.22971 on 17-04-2018 in an untoward accident has been rejected vide order dated 20-12-2019 in Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/288/2018 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal.
2. The facts in brief are that a claim application under Section 16(1) r/w Section 13 (1-A) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 was preferred seeking compensation of Rs. 8 lacs from the Railway on the ground of death of Vijay Yadav in an untoward incident alleged to have occurred on 17-04-2018.
2A. As per the claim application, on 16-04-2018, Vijay Yadav in order to attend his daughter's wedding was travelling from Udhna Junction to Patna holding a valid Sleeper Class ticket bearing PNR No. 855-8026176 and ticket No. 06243593. The marriage of his daughter was to take place on 17-04-2018. During the course of journey, while washing his face at the wash basin inside the coach, owing to heavy gush of wind, he was thrown out of the train. As a result of the said fall, he suffered grievous injuries, which resulted in his death at KM Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR GOPE Signing time: 12-02-2024 19:58:17 3 1048/4-5 of Sleemnabad Railway Station. The alleged incident was reported by Station Master/Sleemnabad vide memo to GRP/Sleemnabad and the said case was registered vide merg. No. 16/2018. That, the journey ticket bearing No. 06243593 bearing PNR No. 855-8026176 dt. 16-04-2018 and cash of Rs. 1800/-, Adhar card were recovered from the deceased.
3. Learned Tribunal framed following issues :-
(i) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train in question at the time of occurrence of the alleged untoward incident ?
(ii) Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to the said alleged untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
(iii) Whether the respondent Railway administration is protected u/s 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants?
(iv) Whether the applicants are legal dependents of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation, if any, granted? Who else are the dependents?
(v) Relief and cost?
4. Learned Tribunal decided the Issue No. 1 in favour of the appellant but, decided the Issue No. 2 against the appellant and in the light of the findings recording Issue No. 2 in claim was rejected.
5. Feeling aggrieved by this finding, the appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the death of Vijay Yadav was not occurred in the untoward incident despite holding that the deceased was travelling in train after purchasing a valid Sleeper class ticket which was found in the possession of the appellant. Learned Tribunal ignored the fact that Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR GOPE Signing time: 12-02-2024 19:58:17 4 the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation that requires liberal construction and railways failed to prove that the matter is within the ambit of exception under Section 124-A of sub-clause A-E of the Railways Act, 1989.
6. Heard.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer.
8. Perused the record.
9. Learned Tribunal considered the Divisional Manager's report and in paragraph-8 it concluded that the deceased has come in contact or got hit by running trains which caused his death and also recorded the finding that the death of deceased has not occurred owing to fall from the train while travelling as a passenger. The record of the DRM is on record which states that the body of Vijay Yadav was found on 17-04-2018 at Km 148/4-5 between Dundi- Sleemnabad station on up-track and a window ticket bearing PNR No. 855- 8026176 dt. 16-04-2018 Udhna Jn. to Patna Jn, was with the body. The deceased was resident of village Dhanoli Post and Tahsil Baheri District Darbhanga State Bihar.
10. All the reasons mentioned in paragraph-8 of the award for denying the death of Vijay Yadav as untoward incident is based on inference that are not drawn from judicious exercise of reasonings in the light of Kamukayi and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2023 SC 2761.
11. In view whereof order dated 20-12-2019 in Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/288/2018 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
12. Since the deceased died of accidental falling from train, which as per Sectin 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, is defined as untoward incident as Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR GOPE Signing time: 12-02-2024 19:58:17 5 per Section 124-A of 1989 Act, in case a passenger dies on account of untoward incident, the Railway Administration shall notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by death of a passenger.
13. Schedule appended with Railway Accidents and Untowards Incidents ( Compensation) Rules, 1990 provides for an amount of compensation in case of death Rs. 8,00,000/-.
14. In view whereof while setting aside the impugned order passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, the claim filed by the appellants is allowed. The respondent-Railways are directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8, 00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of application under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
15. The appeal is allowed to the extent above.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE PG Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR GOPE Signing time: 12-02-2024 19:58:17