Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 124A in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mohsina & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 August, 2017
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case,
as well as the import of the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
1
(2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.01.2026
18:59:45 FAO 59/2020 Page 2 of 10
Court in Mohsina(supra), the application is allowed and the delay in filing
the accompanying appeal is condoned.
Pawan Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 January, 2023
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal
erred in dismissing the appellants' claim on the ground as to why two
separate tickets were purchased when the co-passenger and the deceased
were relatives. The delay in producing the said tickets before the police was
also taken as a ground for dismissal. While assailing the reasoning qua
delayed production of the ticket, learned counsel has relied upon the decision
of this court rendered in Charan Singh Vs. Union of India2,wherein the
factum of delay of six days in producing the ticket, in the facts of the case,
was held insufficient to cast doubt on the status of the deceased as a bona
fide passenger.
Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008
13. It is a trite law that the provisions pertaining to compensation in the
Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Railways Act") constitute
beneficial legislation and must, therefore, receive a liberal and purposive
interpretation, rather than a narrow and technical one. It is further well
settled that the liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is one of
strict liability, and in such cases, no proof of fault or negligence on the part
of the Railways is required (Ref: Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar and Ors.8). Therefore, in the present case, the DRM's conclusion
attributing negligence to the deceased, as well as the Respondent's defence
based on the same, are legally unsustainable in light of the principle of strict
liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Furthermore, the
Tribunal's findings with respect to the manner of purchasing tickets (i.e.,
separate vs. combined tickets for relatives) are hyper-technical in nature and
thus, erroneous. Further, the co-passenger stated that he had to go to
Janakpuri on account of some urgent work and was not aware of the death of
Tara Chand Sharma until the following day. Upon being informed of the
same, he went to the police station and submitted the journey ticket.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Rina Devi on 9 May, 2018
17. Since the accident in the present case occurred on 27.02.2016, i.e.,
prior to the revision of statutory compensation under the Railway Accidents
and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, whereby the
compensation payable in cases of death was enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to
Rs. 8,00,000/-, this Court has applied the principle laid down by the Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi9 for determining the quantum of
compensation. In terms thereof, the amount payable would be the higher of
the following two: (i) the pre-revision compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along
with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident till realization,
or (ii) the revised statutory compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization.