Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India Through General Manager vs Surjit Kaur And Others on 19 February, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.743 of 2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
FAO No.743 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 19.02.2010 **** Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
. . . . Appellant VS.
Surjit Kaur and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.G.S. Bal, Advocate for the appellant.
**** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.
Challenge is to the order dated 6.4.2009, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') by which the claim petition filed by claimants/respondents has been allowed with the following order: -
"The claim application is allowed and an award for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this claim application i.e. 13.8.2007 till realization of the same is made in favour of the applicants and against the respondent-railways. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned in the manner that applicant No.1 Smt. Surjeet kaur who is widow of the deceased shall get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-FAO No.743 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
(Rupees One lac only) and applicant No.2 to 5 who are minor children of the deceased, shall get a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) each.
However the amount of compensation payable to the applicant no.1 shall be kept in fixed deposit in her favour in some Nationalized Bank for a period to two years with liberty to her to withdraw quarterly interest thereon.
Since applicants No.2 to 5 are minors, therefore, their share of compensation amount shall be kept in fixed deposits in some Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. However, their mother, applicant No.1 Smt. Surjeet Kaur shall be entitled to withdraw quarterly interest on such FDRs for the maintenance and other day to day expenses of the minor applicants.
Further, a specific endorsement shall also be made on each of the FDR that no change whatsoever of any sort shall be created thereon till maturity.
As soon as the amount of compensation is received by the applicants, photocopies of the FDRs as detailed above, shall be submitted before the Tribunal for information and record."
This appeal has been filed along with applications, namely, CM No.4142-CII-2010 for condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the appeal and CM No.4143-CII-2010 for condonation of delay of 125 days in re-filing. Even if, delay caused in filing and re-filing of the appeal is ignored, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant because after referring to documentary and oral evidence extensively, the Tribunal had found that it has been admitted in the DRM's enquiry FAO No.743 of 2010 (O&M) -3- report that deceased had fallen down as he slipped while trying to board train 1-USN at Railway Station, Roop Nagar. The incident was reported by Station Master, Railway Station, Roop Nagar through Memo to GRP Ex.A-8 that one person run over by 1-SUN Passenger and got seriously injured. The incident was noticed by the railway authorities and inquest proceedings were initiated by GRP. After due enquiry in the matter, GRP opined that the case of death is due to railway accident. Anil Chibber - RW2 guard of the train has also admitted in his affidavit that when his train was moving, one person was run-over and injured, who was taken away by GRP and Station Master, Roop Nagar. Thus, it was found by the Tribunal that the incident is squarely covered within the definition of an 'untoward incident' as given under Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was also found, as a fact, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as one railway ticket bearing No.34773 dated 25.5.2007 (date of incident) along with Rs.10/- in cash was recovered from the personal search of the deceased. The search and recovery memo was witnessed by Jassa Singh, Chand Singh and Constable Sugreev Chand.
In the face of finding of the fact, which has been recorded on the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence, no meaningful argument has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such I do not find any reason for even condoning the delay. The appeal is, thus, dismissed on merits and as well as it is barred by limitation.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
February 19, 2010 JUDGE
Vivek