Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Section 129 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
The Railways Act, 1989
Harminder Kaur & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2009
In Harvinder Kaur v. Union of India, 2012 ACJ 854, a passenger
died due to accidental slip from the train on account of heavy rush of
passengers and sudden jerk of the train. Railways contended that the
passenger fell down because he attempted to get down from a moving train
at an unscheduled stoppage.
The Union Of India Owning vs The Addl. Registrar on 11 July, 2012
In Union of India Owning Southern Railway v. The Addl. Registrar,
Railways Claims Tribunal, (2012) 5 Mad LJ 562, the passenger travelled in
Chennai-Mangalore Express from Chennai to Karur. The train had an
unscheduled halt at Veeravakiyam Railway Station. After some time, the
train started moving. The deceased fell down from the moving train and died
on the spot.
Rathi Menon vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2001
19. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rathi
Menon (supra), this Court holds that the appellants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.8 lakh according to the Schedule to Railway Accidents
and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 (as on the
date of this judgment).
Raj Pal Goel And Anr. vs Union Of India on 15 January, 2014
As such, there are three
categories of persons who are defined as passengers: - (i) a person with a
valid ticket to travel; (ii) a person who holds a railway pass to travel and (iii)
a person who holds a platform ticket. In each of the categories, so long as a
person is in railway premises or a train, he is taken as a passenger. His or her
presence in the railway premises or a train is taken as authorized. It is for
this reason that there are decisions which extend meaning of the term
"passenger" to a person who comes to a platform and gets into a wrong train
[Gaurav Kapoor v Union of India, III (2014) ACC 639 (Del)] or a person
who purchases a passenger train ticket and gets into an express train
[Santoshi v Union of India, 2014 SCC Online Del 6510 (Del)]; person
travelling atop a train and not inside a passenger compartment [Raj Pal
Goel v. Union of India, 2014 ACJ 2315] or a person breaking journey
without an endorsement and getting into another train in continuation of the
journey to the destination station [Dwarika Mahto v. Union of India, 2013
ACJ 768]. In all these situations, it is possible to feed meaning and logic to
the decisions only if we recognise that primacy always is the lawful
authority to enter the railway premises when the incident of travel itself
becomes secondary.
Pramath Kumar Jena vs Union Of India Represented Through on 20 May, 2011
17. The Andhra Pradesh High Court and Division Bench of Calcutta High
FAO 492/2012 Page 13 of 15
Court, following Rathi Menon (supra), have applied the amended schedule
as on the date of adjudication in Union of India v. Aggala Dilleswara Rao,
2006 ACJ 1470; Pramath Kumar Jena v. Union of India, AIR 2012 Ori 32
and Radha Yadav v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 420
respectively.
Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir & Anr vs Sardar Gurpreet Singh & Ors on 12 September, 2014
18. It is well settled that the appeal is the continuation of the claim
petition and the power of the Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the
Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to Sardar Tajender Singh
Gambhir v. Sardar Gurpreet Singh, 2014 (10) SCC 702.