Roshni & Anr vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2018
As per plea of the claimants/appellants, the deceased had fallen
on the track in an effort to save his wife who suddenly fell down from the
platform due to pull and push of passengers. Meaning thereby that the
occurrence took place before the deceased could board the train or attempt
to board the train. If this factual plea of the appellants is accepted and the
case is examined in the light of judgments of Delhi High Court in Mukesh
Rani and others's case (supra), Krishan Kumar Goel's case (supra) and
8 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2019 05:15:27 :::
FAO Nos.10102 and 10345 of 2014 (O&M) -9-
Raj Bal and others's case (supra), it is difficult to accept contention of the
respondent or sustain findings of the Tribunal that the occurrence in
question does not fall within the purview and ambit of Section 123(c) of the
Act. Counsel for the respondent has failed to cite any contrary judgment.