Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Bandana Mishra vs Union Of India on 12 May, 2017
'24.The reasoning in para 5.3.4 extracted above would not
relate to issue No.2 but to issue No.1. What remains is para
5.3.5, recording the ipse dixit of the presiding officer. The
decision in Bandana Mondal (supra) has been aptly cited by
Mr.Banerjee, which proceeded to decide the lis before it relying
on the decisions of the Apex Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar
(supra) and Vidhyadhar (supra). Para 11 of the cited decision
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
reads as follows:
The Manager M/S Icici Lombarado And ... vs G Varalakshmi W/O Late H P Gopalakrishna on 7 December, 2009
In fact, under similare
circumstances, this Court in the case of The Union of
India owning Southern Railway by its General
Manager, Chennai v. G.Jayalakshmi and others, 2012
(3) CTC 741, while considering an identical issue, has
held as follows:-
Union Of India vs Rina Devi on 9 May, 2018
9.Even the Apex Court also in the case of Union of India (UOI) vs
Rina Devi reported in 2018 (7) SCALE 274 has held that mere presence of a
body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or
deceased was a bonafide 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 not a bonafide passenger
and 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. In the present case, all the circumstances clearly show that
when the deceased fell down from the running train in Madurai Railway
Station, while travelling in the Passenger train, he was immediately taken to
Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai where he died due to grievous
injuries sustained by him. Due to change of track, the train became shaky,
http://www.judis.nic.in
14
hence, the deceased fell down from the running train and died in the
Government Rajaji Hospital and the same covers under Section 123(c)(2) of
the Railways Act 1989 which defines the term 'untoward incident' as above.
Therefore, as held by the Calcutta High Court, it is very difficult to expect
the ticket from an un-conscious person, who fell down from the running
train. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased is the
boanfide passenger.
Section 23 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
A.Thanikachalam vs The Union Of India Owning on 3 June, 2016
7.In a similar circumstance, in the case of A.Thanikachalam and
others vs. the Union of India reported in 2016 (6) CTC 820, I have held that
when it is an admitted fact that both the deceased died in an untoward
incident on the respective dates while travelling in the train, the onus is
http://www.judis.nic.in
10
upon the Railways to prove that the deceased were not bonafide passengers.
It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the judgment as under:
1