Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijlal Ahirwar vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2024
1
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 14th Of May, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 2677 Of 2018
Between:-
1. Brijlal Ahirwar S/O Late Maan Singh Ahirwar, Aged
About 63 Years (Father of the Deceased - Manoharlal
Ahirwar)
2. Smt Harsudhi Bai W/O Brijlal Ahirwar, Aged About 59
Years, (Mother of the Deceased - Manoharlal Ahirwar)
3. Smt Hemlata Bai W/O Late Manohar Lal Ahirwar,
Aged About 34 Years, (Wife of the Deceased -
Manoharlal Ahirwar)
4. Master Dhurv S/O Late Manohar Lal Ahirwar, Aged
About 10 Years
5. Master Vibhor S/O Late Manohar Lal Ahirwar, Aged
About 10 Years, Appellants No.4 & 5 are Minor
Through Next Friend Natural Guardian Their Mother
Smt Hemlata Bai (Appellant No.3)
All R/O Near Anand Talkies Infront Of Khare Kuvan
Ward No 2 Mungawali Distt Ashok Nagar (MP)
.....Appellants
(By Shri Shafiqullah Mohd. - Advocate)
And
Union Of India
Through General Manager
West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP)
.....Respondent
(By Shri Shiv Kumar Kashyap Advocate along with Ms. Shrishti Kashyap - Advocate)
2
Reserved On :- 06.05.2024
Pronounced On :- 14.05.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgement of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (in short 'the Tribunal') dated 12.04.2018, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants being dependents of the deceased - Manoharlal Ahirwar has been dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the RCT.
3. Succinctly stated, the brief facts of this case are that the deceased - Manoharlal Ahirwar was son of first and second appellants and husband of third appellant and father of the fourth and fifth appellants. That on 28.12.2012 the deceased was a passenger of the train Bhopal-Jodhpur passenger travelling Ex-Vidisha to Mungawali holding a valid II-class ordinary journey ticket. When the train was about to arrive at Mungawali station the deceased came to the door of the coach to get down, due to heavy crowd in the compartment and jolting of the train and push by the co- passengers from behind and unexpectedly fell down from the running train and died on the spot. On the memo of the Station Manager, Mungawali, Govt. Railway Police Guna registered vide merg No.13/2012 and conduct naksha panchayatnama and forwarded the dead body to the Govt. Hospital Mungawali for autopsy. The journey ticket was lost alongwith his bag containing other things of the deceased.
34. The deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train and died due to untoward incident and the applicants/claimants are being the parents, wife and children of the deceased who are legal dependents, filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs Rupees) before the RCT at Bhopal on account of the death of the deceased in an "untoward incident" occurred on 28.12.2012 as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Act of 1989.
5. The respondent/railway denied the happening of any untoward incident as alleged by the appellants, further denied that on 28.12.2012, deceased was a passenger travelling by train Bhopal-Jodhpur passenger and fell down due to push by co-passenger near Mungawali station. Further averred that the investigation report reveals that the deceased committed suicide by jumping before the engine of the train and died and it was further pleaded that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, no journey ticket was recovered from the dead body. Further contended that the railway administration is not responsible for the death of the deceased. The written statement is supported by the DRM report. It is prayed that the claim application may be dismissed.
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues on 09.12.2014 :-
1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the time of occurance of the alleged untoward incident?
2. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) r/w 124 of the Railways Act, 1989?
3. Whether the respondent Railway Administration is protected under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants?4
4. Whether the appellants are the legal dependents of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation, if any, granted ? who else are the dependents?
5. Relief and cost ?
7. In order to establish the claim of the applicants at the time of inquiry, Brijlal Ahirwar, father of the deceased filed an affidavit examined as PW-1 and cross-examined by respondent's counsel and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-11 on behalf of the claimants, no evidence led by the respondent except marking of Ex.R-1 (DRM report) dated 16.05.2024 on behalf of the respondent.
8. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 and placing reliance on Ex. A-1 to A-11 and Ex.-R-1 (DRM report), the learned Claims Tribunal, while passing the impugned order came to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train holding a valid journey ticket. The admission of the applicant in the statement dated 11.06.2015 about the possibility of committing suicide for the reasons stated therein the opinion of the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body that the death of the deceased proved to be a case of suicide. The death of the deceased attracts the exception Clause (a) to (e) of the proviso of Section 124A of the Railways Act and the incident is not falling within the purview of Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act and therefore, railway administration is not liable to pay compensation and dismissed the claim petition.
9. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the judgement dated 12.04.2018 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation instead of dismissing 5 the claim application. Further would submit that there is ample evidence available on record in order to prove that the untoward incident took place while deceased was travelling in the train and he fell down from the running train and cut into two pieces and died on the spot and dead body was recovered from the railway track. Further would submit that the counsel for the appellants while placing the reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, AIR 2018 SC 2362, submits that the claim application could not be declined merely on the ground that the journey ticket was not found on the spot of the incident or from the deceased at the time of naksha panchayatnama. Further would submit that the incident happened on 28.12.2012 and investigation report dated 17.04.2014 and DRM report dated 16.05.2014 which are causes delay and in this regard, the above proceedings itself conducted belatedly near after 16 months of the incident and those proceedings were filing subsequent filing of claim application before the Tribunal, therefore, the delay in intimation of DRM enquiry, the silence about the specifies of the accident makes the DRM report dated 16.05.2014 is of no consequences and treats the said report is of no avail and further would submit that as per the information received by the Sub-Station Manager that "one unknown person runover on Guna side on Platform No.1" and naksha panchayatnama (Ex.A-3) also mentioned that due to the train accident, deceased died. Further would submit that if really the deceased jumped before the engine of the train and committed suicide, the driver of the engine or the co-pilot of the engine would have informed that unknown person jumped in front of the engine and runover. There was no such information received by Station Manager, therefore, the whole defence set up by the respondent is not trustworthy and tenable which are taken after filing claim petition. Therefore, he prays to set 6 aside the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2018 and adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Railway submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. It has been further contended that the appellants failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger or that the untoward incident took place while the deceased was travelling in a train and due to push by co- passenger unexpectedly fallen from the running train and died. Further submit that it appears to be a case of suicide supported by post mortem report and thus, is covered under the proviso carved out of Section 124-A of Railways Act and further would submit that the findings of learned Tribunal based on sound reasoning and it does not require any interference by this Court, thus, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Now the question arises for determination in the instant appeal is :-
"(i) Whether the death of the deceased in the aforesaid manner is covered by Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railway Act or not ?
(ii) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim to be any way disturbed or modified or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances?
(iii) If so to what relief, the party should be entitled to?"
13. In view of the said legal position and on the basis of pleading and the material placed on record before the claim Tribunal, it is required to be analysed whether the finding of the claim Tribunal are just and perverse.
14. It is necessary to refer to Chapter-XIII of the Railways Act, 1989, which sets out the liability of the Railway Administration for death and injury causes to the passengers due to accident.
7"Accident" is defined as an accident of the nature described in section 124 of the Act, "untoward incident" is another term which is defined in the said Chapter and it includes the accidental falling of any passenger from any train carrying passengers.
Section 124 determines as under:
"Extent of liability: When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, 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 the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident."
15. Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989, reads thus :
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.
--When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, 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 the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;8
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'passenger' includes--
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."
16. "Untoward incident" has been defined under section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 which read as under: -
"123(c) - "untoward incident ''means -
1. (i). the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-
section (1) of section 3 of the terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1997 (28 of 1987):- or
(ii)The making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii)The indulging in rioting shoot-out or arson, by any person in or any train carrying passengers, or in waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station, or, (2) The accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
17. A plain reading of the above referred definitions of an "untoward incident" includes the accidental fallen of any passenger from the train carrying passengers. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal gave finding that there is every possibility that the deceased committed suicide by jumping before the engine of the train and cut into two pieces and no journey ticket 9 was found or recovered from the deceased, thus he cannot be considered as a bonafide passenger. To substantiate the above said plea, neither proper material evidence collected by police nor by Railway Protection Force before forwarding the investigation report to Senior Divisional Security Commissioner and to DRM report. No statements recorded during the naksha panchayatnama proceedings, on perusal of DRM report, it finds that they have gathered the information from the third party that the deceased committed suicide and deceased does not fall in the category of bonafide passenger.
18. In this regard, it is also worthwhile to note the DRM proceedings itself were conducted belatedly i.e. nearly 16 months of the incident and the report was filed on 16.05.2014 and such the claim ought not to have been denied on this account.
19. The aspect of belated filing/preparation of DRM report had come up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs. General Manage, South Eastern Central Railway1,, wherein while holding the appellants entitled to compensation, it was observed as under:
"3. Though Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the Appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.2.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.4.2009....
5. ......Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the Appellants shall be entitled to
1. 2019 (12) SCC 387 10 compensation payable Under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989........"
20. Another decision in Bhola Vs. Union of India2, has held delay in initiation of DRM inquiry to be fatal to the facts of the case, as what needs to be essentially gathered is what happened on the date of accident. In this captioned case, it has been opined in para-4 and 5 are as follows :
4. The claim petition was filed on 27.07.2014, the DRM Inquiry was initiated thereafter and a report was filed 7 months later. The delay in initiating an inquiry is fatal to the facts of the case because what essentially needs to be gathered is what happened on the date of accident. The medical reports and the police records show that an accident happened on 08.10.2012 and the cause of the accident was, the appellant having been fallen from a moving train. The DRM Report does not address any of these aspects. On the contrary it says that since no ticket was produced to support the claim of the appellant, of him being a bona fide passenger, therefore by conjecture, he could have well suffered a self-inflicted injury while crossing the railway tracks. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 5608/2017.
5. The delay in intimation of the DRM Inquiry, the silence about the specifics of the accident makes the DRM Report of no consequence.
21. In alike facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the above judgements, placing the DRM report which was filed after period of 16 months, in contrary to sub rule (2) of the Rule 6 of Railways Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents), Rules, 2020 as such the DRM report is of no avail. In the instant case, the incident happened on 28.12.2012 and investigation report dated 17.04.2014 and DRM report dated 16.05.2014, the statements of deceased's father recorded by GRP police on
2. (2018) SCC Online Del 13486 11 11.06.2015 (Ex.R-1), the statements of Points man recorded on 17.04.2014 and the claim application filed by the applicant on 22.10.2013 which clearly prove that after filing of claim petition, the investigation starts and to suit their convenience, filed all the reports stating the deceased committed suicide by jumping before the engine of the train and cut into two pieces and died. The defence set up by Railway which is nothing but after thought without any material evidence in order to make the payment to the appellants.
22. Another decision reported in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi 3, the Apex Court in para 17 has observed as under:- , "We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a benafide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly....."
23. It can be seen from the above, the father of the deceased was examined as RW-1, he stated in his cross examination that deceased is his son and used to travel up and down from Mungawali to Vidisha and he had got Monthly Seasons Ticket(MST). Further he stated that sometime his son buy a ticket and to consider his evidence that mere absence of the ticket with the deceased or injured will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger and father of the deceased categorically stated the deceased used to work in agriculture produce market in Vidisha and used to travel up and down from Vidisha to Mungawali and the said fact mentioned in the DRM report, therefore, the production of journey ticket does not arise since the deceased 3 2018 ACJ 1441(SC) 12 was travelling on MST. Therefore, the above judgment squarely applies to the present situation, it cannot be denied that the mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger and the appellants are entitled to claim compensation.
24. In the given circumstances, the appellants are able to prove the deceased boarded in train Bhopal-Jodhpur passenger and when the train was reaching at Mungawali station, due to heavy crowd, jolting of the train, push by passenger, unexpectedly fell down and died on the spot, cut into two pieces. Immediately after accident, Sub-Station Manager communicated by way of memo under Ex.A-1 dated 28.12.2012 that he received information from DXSS/MNV (Mungawali station) that there has been a runover by unknown person at Guna. The naksha panchayatnama was conducted on 29.12.2012 (Ex.A-3) in the presence of punchs and gathered the information is what happened on the date of accident and it is mentioned that due to train accident, suffered injuries and died. There was no material fact that the deceased jumped before the engine of the train and committed suicide, except the naksha panchayatnama and memo of Station Managaer, there was no other material documentary evidence available on record and the DRM report and investigation report belatedly i.e. 16 months brought into existence after filing of claim petition. Hence, it cannot be said the deceased committed suicide and jumped before the engine and died, thus, when the deceased was travelling in the train is proved and said occurrence has been taken place which has been found to be genuine as discussed herein above, it will come under the untoward incident in light of the Section 123-C of the Railway Act.
25. In view of the above position of law as well as the above discussions and facts, it is evident that the Tribunal has taken hyper technical view in the 13 matter and the evidence and the materials have not been construed by dismissing the claim application of the appellants.
26. The judgement of Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakar Vijayakumar, 4 which reads as under:-
"while considering the definition of "untoward incident" with respect to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in section 123(c) of the Act of 1989, has observed that if we attach a restrictive meaning to the said expression, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accident and, therefore, a purposive and not literal interpretation should be given to the said expression. Paragraph-11 and 14 of the said decision is usually quoted as under:-
11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one.......
14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a 4 2008 ACJ 1895 14 train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.
27. In the light of the above judgment, the accident in which Manoharlal Ahirwar is clearly not covered by proviso to Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. Hence this Court is of the opinion in the present case is clearly covered by main body of Section 124-A of the Railways Act not its proviso. Therefore, in my view as can be seen from the memo of Sub-Station Manager (Ex.A-1) dated 28.12.2012 and naksha panchayatnama (Ex.A-3) dated 29.12.2012 which are primary documents, it did not disclose that the deceased jumped in front of engine of the train and committed suicide. Hence, it is covered by under Section 124-A and 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989 is an "untoward incident" as bonafide passenger. The claimants would be entitled to compensation. This Court finds that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down which warrants payment of compensation whenever untoward incident occurs. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, I am of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
28. The Courts are bound to adopt doctrine of liberal interpretation, so as to ensure that the concept of social justice prevail and livelihood of dependents who lost their near and dear and the breadwinner are saved, therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 12.04.2018 is not sustainable and the appellants are entitled to claim compensation. The deceased was a 15 bonafide passenger and the railway could not be able to prove the same with an irretrievable evidence and the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal cannot be allowed to sustain because there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent-Railway and it is a case of fallen down from the running train. Deceased was admittedly a bondfide passenger by holding a valid travel ticket (MST) which was elicited druing the cross-examination of PW-1, thus in the absence of any criminal act and the mens rea is established, the welfare scheme of compensation cannot be denied to the victims/appellants. The deceased standing at the door of the train, due to jerk and pull and push off by the passengers, he fallen from the running train and died due to accident and the said fact supported by Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-3, and therefore, the Ex.A-1 and Ex-A-3 primarily taken into consideration that the deceased fallen from the running train and cut into two pieces and died, therefore, the accident in question comes under Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. The accidental falling of the passenger from the running train is governed by "untoward incident", therefore, in my opinion the claim made by the appellants/dependents of the deceased is fully covered under provisions of Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 as the deceased who was bonafide passenger and died in the "untoward incident". The Tribunal was not justified in holding that MST was not found in the person of the deceased. This having percolated in the order leads to perversity of finding. Furthermore, the presumption drawn by the Tribunal that the deceased since was cut in two pieces cannot be said to have died due to falling from train is also based on mere presumption and conjectures rather than on cogent evidence.
29. In the present case, the Tribunal recorded reasons came to the conclusion that what had been recorded by the Police during the investigation to the effect that it is a case of suicide cannot be a sustainable, especially in 16 the absence of any acceptable evidence in this regard. No statements of mediators have been recorded during the naksha panchayatnama, they have opined that the deceased died due to the train accident. In the absence of any other acceptable evidence, merely because investigation report and DRM report which came into the existence with delay of 16 months after filing of the claim application, it had been recorded by the Police for extraneous reasons that the deceased committed suicide, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not sustainable and not in accordance with law.
30. The above judgments reads together, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has taken hyper technicalities and fell an error in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. In view of the said legal position, on the basis of material placed on record before the Claims Tribunal, the findings of the claims Tribunal are perverse and admittedly, when the accident is occurred, the DRM report has to be filed within 60 days complying sub Rule 2 of Rule 6 of Railways Passenger (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rule, 2020 but it worthwhile note that the DRM proceedings itself conducted for belatedly i.e. nearly 16 months of the incident and report was filed on 16.05.2014, investigation report was filed on 17.04.2014 and the incident happened on 28.12.2012, the statement of PW-1 recorded on 11.06.2015, therefore, the investigation and preparation of DRM report filed by the respondent is fatal to the facts of this case. The delay in intimation in DRM inquiry, the silence about the specifies of the accident makes the DRM report is of no consequence, in alike facts and circumstances of the case and placed on the DRM report which was filed after period of 16 months is of no avail.
1731. Therefore, in the above position of law in the matter, the evidence and the materials have not been properly construed while dismissing the claim petition of the appellants by the learned Tribunal which is not sustainable and the Railway has failed to examine any of the witnesses to establish the fact that the deceased jumped in front of the engine of the train and cut into two pieces and died and Railway authorities have not adduced any evidence to demonstrate that the case falls under the exceptions in proviso to Section 124A of the Railway Act. In the circumstances, the appellants would be entitled compensation under Section 124-A of the Railway Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased has committed suicide and in facts of the present case, in my opinion, the Tribunal wholly unjustified in giving the finding that the deceased committed suicide and dismiss the claim.
32. In view of the above discussion, the observation of the learned Tribunal contained in the impugned order and the contents of the Railway cannot be sustained, and therefore, in view of fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who died in an "untoward incident", the appellants are entitled for compensation under Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. The impugned order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in case no.O.A/IIu/2013/0474, rejecting the claim of compensation by the respondent/Railway on account of death of the deceased does not fall under the expression of "untoward incident" dated 28.12.2012 is hereby set- aside. In view of the above fact, it is evident the appeal deserves to be succeed for the reasons that the appellants have successfully proved the entitlement to compensation under the provisions of the Act due to death occurred in an untoward incident and the appellants are entitled to compensation to sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakh Rupees) as per the last Rules in view of Rule-3 Schedule -II of the Railway Accident And Untoward 18 Incidents (Compensation) Rule, 1990. All the appellants are entitled for equal share.
33. Accordingly, and as per the above discussion, this appeal is, thus, allowed and set-aside the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No.O.A/IIu/2013/0474, consequently, the claim application is allowed. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only). The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent/railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. No order as costs.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J vibha VIBHA PACHORI 2024.05.14 15:53:15 +05'30' 19 In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur Before Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana On The 14th Of May, 2024 Misc. Appeal No. 2677 Of 2018 Between:-
1. Brijlal Ahirwar S/O Late Maan Singh Ahirwar, Aged About 63 Years (Father of the Deceased - Manoharlal Ahirwar)
2. Smt Harsudhi Bai W/O Brijlal Ahirwar, Aged About 59 Years, (Mother of the Deceased - Manoharlal Ahirwar)
3. Smt Hemlata Bai W/O Late Manohar Lal Ahirwar, Aged About 34 Years, (Wife of the Deceased - Manoharlal Ahirwar)
4. Master Dhurv S/O Late Manohar Lal Ahirwar, Aged About 10 Years
5. Master Vibhor S/O Late Manohar Lal Ahirwar, Aged About 10 Years, Appellants No.4 & 5 are Minor Through Next Friend Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt Hemlata Bai (Appellant No.3) All R/O Near Anand Talkies Infront Of Khare Kuvan Ward No 2 Mungawali Distt Ashok Nagar (MP) .....Petitioners (By Shri Shafiqullah Mohd. - Advocate) And Union Of India Thr. General Manager West Central Railway, Jabalur (Madhya Pradesh) .....Respondent (By Shri Shiv Kumar Kashyap Advocate along with Ms. Shrishti Kashyap - Advocate) 20 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 14.05.2024 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ? Yes/No DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.