Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1628 (PAT)

Vinay Prajapati @ Mahendra Prajapati v. Union Of India

2007-10-04

REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.4.2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No. OA-97000276, whereby it has rejected the claim of the appellants for compensation on account of the death of Ajay Prajapati due to accidental fall while travelling in Purushottam Up Express Train near West signal of Sasaram Railway Station. 2. The case of the appellants is that appellants no. 2, 3 are the parents of the deceased and appellant No. 1 is the brother of the deceased. On 7.7.1997, the deceased was travelling in the lower train, He had a valid 2nd class ticket from Gaya to Delhi. On way due to jerk in changing track and crowd in the compartment the deceased accidently fell down and subsequently died. So, the appellants filed application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for compensation. 3. The respondent Railway opposed the prayer by filing a written statement. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for determination: (i) Whether the deceased died due to untoward incident as defined u/s 124- A of the Railways Act, 1989 ? (ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (iii) Relief? 5. The Railway Tribunal after considering the evidence on record decided Issue No. 2 in favour of the appellants but decided Issue No. 1 against them holding that the deceased knowingly was travelling in a crowded compartment. The injury of the deceased would amount to selfinflicted injury and would not be covered by the definition of untoward incident. This being so, the appellants are not entitled to any relief. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no evidence that the compartment was so crowded that it was risky to board it and therefore, if the deceased had boarded a crowded compartment and fell from it, it could not amount to self-inflicted injury. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Railway defended the judgment. 8. In this case it is not denied that the deceased died on account of fall from the above train. The witness Ram Pravesh Prajapati has also stated that he and his uncle (deceased) had boarded the train at Gaya and on account of rush he changed the compartment and at Mugalsarai Station he searched for the deceased but he could not be found. The witness Ram Pravesh Prajapati has also stated that he and his uncle (deceased) had boarded the train at Gaya and on account of rush he changed the compartment and at Mugalsarai Station he searched for the deceased but he could not be found. He returned to Sasaram and went to the hospital where his uncle told him that after the train started as there was rush, being pushed he fell down. 9. The evidence of the above witnesses hence is clear that the deceased by travelling on the above train fell down accidently when the train was running. Therefore, this would be covered by the definition of untoward incident given in section 123(c)(2). 10. The respondent, therefore, is liable to pay compensation unless it shows that the death had occurred due to self- inflicted injury etc. mentioned in proviso to Section 124A. But the respondent has not led any evidence to show how the death occurred. The evidence of the above witnesses, of course, shows that there was crowd in the compartment in which the deceased was travelling but there is nothing to show that the compartment was so crowded that the deceased should have expected that he might fall, so even though the compartment was crowded the death by fall from the compartment would not amount to self-inflicted injury. 11. The learned Tribunal, hence, was not justified in refusing compensation to the appellants. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 13. It appears from the impugned order that only the parents of the deceased were dependent on the deceased. So, they are entitled to receive the compensation and it is directed that the respondent Railway would pay Rs. 4 lacs as compensation to the parents of the deceased (appellants No. 2 and 3) within four months from the date of the order.