Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The appellants, who are the dependents of deceased Ramesh Chander Aggarwal, have filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RCT Act') against the order dated 17.4.1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants for compensation on account of the death of aforesaid Ramesh Chander Aggarwal in a train accident,was dismissed.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

1. Whether Sh. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal - the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Mathura-Delhi passenger train? OPA
2. Whether the deceased expired due to train accident within the meaning of Section 124/124-A of the Railways Act? OPA
3. If both the above issues are proved, whether the applicant is entitled to recover the amount as claimed in the claim application from the respondents? OPA
4. Relief.
124. 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.
10. Under this section, the Railway Administration is only liable to pay compensation to the defendants of the deceased or to the injured when the alleged incident occurs in the course of working a railway, being either a collusion 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh, 1984 A.C.J. 719 has interpreted Section 82-A of the old Act i.e. Railways Act (9 of 1890) which was equivalent to Section 124 of the Railways Act and held that under this Section only that accident was covered which was an accident, to the train or a part of the train due to either (i) collision, or (ii) derailment, or (iii) other accident to a train and not an accident to a passenger. In the said case, the Railway Administration was held not liable to pay compensation to a passenger who fell out of the train while it was being shunted and sustained injuries. Similarly, by following the said decision the Bombay High Court in Ratnakar Tanbaji Hankar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1994 Bombay 132, held that an accident in which the passenger fell out of the bogies of a train and died on being caught between the platform and running train is not covered under Section 124 of the Railways Act. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the accident in question in the instant case is also not covered under the provision of Section 124 of the Railways Act.