Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Kaur And Anr vs Union Of India on 23 March, 2015
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA
2015.03.31 16:41
216
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 1988 of 2013 (O/M)
Date of decision : 23.3.2015
Jasbir Kaur and another ..... Appellants
Versus
Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi ...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate, for respondent.
1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see
the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not. Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes
-.- -.-
KULDIP SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2012, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, (in short 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim application filed by the present appellants was dismissed.
Facts of the case are that Gurjeet Singh (since deceased) son of the present appellants had gone to Delhi on 20.5.2007 for some work of his employer, namely, Punjab Crockery House, Amloh, Khanna. On 22.5.2007, when the deceased was returning from Delhi by train No. 5707 Up, he accidentally fell down from the said train near Gate No. 145-C, near Railway Station SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.03.31 16:41 FAO No. 1988 of 2013 (O/M) -2- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Sirhind. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. On the memo issued by the Station Master, Sirhind to GRP, inquest proceedings were conducted and it was found to be railway accident as a result of fall from the train. The deceased was travelling in 2nd class compartment and had a valid journey ticket, which got lost during untoward incident as the luggage and bag of the deceased could not be recovered. It is further stated that it has been held by the Courts that it is the duty of the Railways/respondent to prove that the alleged incident was not a untoward incident as mentioned in Section 124-A read with Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time of untoward incident.
In the written statement, respondent took the plea that the accident did not take place, as alleged. A perusal of the injuries/body condition of the deceased reveal that the body was cut into small pieces. It is the common law of physics that an object falling from a moving object say train/bus etc. would fall away and move away further and under no circumstances, it will come under the running train.
From the pleadings, following issues were framed :-
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 Railways Act. SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.03.31 16:41 FAO No. 1988 of 2013 (O/M) -3- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
3. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased ?
4. Relief.
After recording the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no evidence available on record to show that the deceased was found travelling on a particular train. Instead, there is evidence that the deceased got entangled with the train and dragged upto Gate No. 145-B. He was run over by the train and he died at the spot. It was further held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the incident does not fall within the ambit of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Reference is also made to the copy of extract of untoward incident register of the Railway Station, Sirhind and DRM report. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the lower Court file.
Untoward incident is defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under :-
"Section 123
(a) and (b) xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx [(c)(1)(i) to (iii) xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.]"
Therefore, the definition made it clear that the accidental SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.03.31 16:41 FAO No. 1988 of 2013 (O/M) -4- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document falling from any train carrying passengers is covered under the definition of 'untoward incident'. In Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger is defined as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation on account of untoward incident.
The Tribunal has taken the view that the deceased was dragged by the train upto Gate No. 145-C, struck with the gate's check rail and fell down on up line and the body was cut into small pieces. These circumstances rule out the possibility of falling from the train.
A perusal of evidence shows that Jagdeep Singh, Gateman of Gate No. 145-B has stated before the Tribunal that on the day of occurrence, he saw train No. 5707 Up coming from Ambala side. He saw that a boy was found clinging with the train and he suddenly fell from the train. When the GRP recorded the statement of the said gateman Jagdeep Singh in the inquest report, he also maintained the same stand. Therefore, the statement of Jagdeep Singh, Gateman, who is an eye-witness of the occurrence at the relevant time when the deceased fell from the train after he was found clinging with it, is trustworthy. It indicates that probably the deceased might be standing near the doors and was holding the handle of the doors of train. He might have slipped from the train and tried to save himself by clinging with train for some time, but ultimately fell down. When he fell from the train, he was run over by SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.03.31 16:41 FAO No. 1988 of 2013 (O/M) -5- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the train. The post mortem report shows that probably the train passed over the neck portion of deceased, resulting in severance of the neck and left and right arm. The fall of the passenger was witnessed by Jagdeep Singh, Gateman himself. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Railways to say that as per the rule of the physics, he might have been thrown away from the train. Therefore, the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Now, the question would arise as to whether the deceased was carrying a valid ticket ?
As per the statement of the father of deceased, the deceased was working with Punjab Crockery House, Amloh, Khanna. He (deceased) had gone to Delhi on 20.5.2007. This statement is not disputed. Certainly, if the deceased had gone to Delhi, he might be coming back. The train was coming from Delhi via Ambala and the deceased was to get down at Khanna Railway Station. The post mortem report shows that the body of the deceased was cut into small pieces. Though, one card was found in the pocket of his pant, but the Tribunal erred in holding that the ticket might also be in the same pocket. Normally, the railway ticket is kept in the front pocket of the shirt. Therefore, when the deceased fell down from the train and was run over by the train, the ticket might have fallen at the spot. Infact, there is nothing on file to show that a detailed inspection was carried out of the surrounding area of SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.03.31 16:41 FAO No. 1988 of 2013 (O/M) -6- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the place from where the deceased was found clinging with the train till the place he was run over by the train. Only the inspection of the place where the dead body was found was done. It being so, the possibility of falling of ticket cannot be ruled out.
It being so, the findings of the Tribunal on all the issues are reversed and as provided in amended rules i.e. Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997, a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs is awarded to the appellants. The same shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
Consequently, the present appeal is allowed.
(KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE 23.3.2015 sjks