Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1768 (ALL)

UNION OF INDIA v. VED RAM

2007-07-02

NARAYAN SHUKLA, U.K.DHAON

body2007
U. K. DHAON AND NARAYAN SHUKLA, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Anil Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jaspreet singh and Mr. P. K. Singh learned counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE Union of India has preferred the instant first appeal from order under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal act, 1987 against the judgment and award dated 3. 4. 2003 passed by the Railway claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Case no. 0000033 by which compensation of rs. 4,00,000 was awarded to the claimant-respondent. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that a claim petition under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was filed by the claimants-respondents on account of death of Sadhana Kumari. The said claim petition was contested by the appellant by filing written statement, stating, inter alia, that the alleged incident does not fall under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined in section 123 (c) (2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings by the parties, the railway Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Sadhana Kumari? (2) Whether on 21. 10. 1998, deceased sadhana Kumari was a bona fide passenger of the train No. 104 Dn. ? (3) Whether on 21. 10. 1998, the death of deceased Sadhana Kumari was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under section 123 (c) of the Railways act? ( 5 ) THE Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record allowed the claim petition preferred by the respondents and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the dependants of the deceased Sadhana kumari. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the controversy in the present case is not covered either under section 123 (c) (2) or under section 124- A of the railways Act and the Tribunal in a most arbitrary and illegal manner has awarded the compensation to the respondents. He further submits that Sadhana Kumari, who was travelling in the train, has not taken proper precaution while getting down from the train and the death was caused due to her negligence. He further submits that Sadhana Kumari, who was travelling in the train, has not taken proper precaution while getting down from the train and the death was caused due to her negligence. He further submits that sadhana Kumari was not a victim of an untoward incident and as such the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. He has relied upon the Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh high Court reported in Union of India v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah, 2004 ACJ 529 (AP), the Division Bench judgment of this court reported in Union of India v. Jameela, 2004 (22) L. C. D. 986 and the decision of honble Apex Court reported in Sukhdev singh v. Delhi State (Govt. of N. C. T. of delhi), 2003 AIR SCW 4229. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the railway Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record has held that the deceased Sadhana Kumari was a bona fide passenger of train No. 104 dn. He further submits that the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record has recorded the findings that the deceased Sadhana Kumari was the victim of an untoward incident as defined under section 123 (c) (2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act and compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 was rightly awarded in favour of the respondents. ( 8 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4,00,000 was rightly awarded in favour of the respondents. ( 8 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. ( 9 ) SECTION 124-A of the Act is reproduced as under: "compensation on account of untoward incident.- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to - (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. " ( 10 ) THE term untoward incident has been defined under section 123 (c) of the act as under: " (c) untoward incident means - (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloakroom or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. " ( 11 ) IT is admitted case of the parties that the deceased Sadhana Kumari was travelling on 21. 10. 1998, in train No. 104 dn. as a bonafide passenger. Respondents have alleged that on 21. 10. " ( 11 ) IT is admitted case of the parties that the deceased Sadhana Kumari was travelling on 21. 10. 1998, in train No. 104 dn. as a bonafide passenger. Respondents have alleged that on 21. 10. 1998, Sadhana kumari, accidentally fell down from the train and came under the wheel of the train at Kamalganj Railway Station and died on account of injuries sustained by her. ( 12 ) CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT No. 1 stated that while the train was reaching at Kamalganj railway Station, his daughter was in the preparation of getting down from the train but due to heavy and random jerk, she was unbalanced and her saree got hooked with the compartment door, consequently the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and came under the wheel of the train and died on spot on 21. 10. 1998. ( 13 ) IN support of his contention, he has brought on record the panchnama. In the panchnama, the place of incident has been shown as platform No. 1 at the Railway station, Kamalganj. ( 14 ) ONE independent witness, namely, brindavan, son of Murali Dhar who was waiting at the same station for his one relative, who was travelling in that very train, has stated that when the train was approaching the platform, the deceased sadhana Kumari accidentally, fell down from 104 Dn. train, due to sudden jerk and jolt and her saree got hooked with the compartment door, consequently came under the wheel and died. ( 15 ) JAISI Ram, the Guard of the train has filed an affidavit stating therein that two minutes after the train had started moving from Kamalganj Railway Station, he saw that a person around 5 to 6 bogies away has fallen down from the train and thereafter the public also started shouting. He immediately applied vacuum brake and informed the driver of the said train. As soon as the train stopped, he reached the site of incident. The Assistant Stationmaster on duty at the said station had also arrived, whom he duly informed regarding the incident. Accordingly, he submitted that the incident took place after the train started moving from Kamalganj Railway Station. ( 16 ) THE Assistant Stationmaster in his statement has admitted that during the course of stepping down from the train, sadhana Kumari became unbalanced and fell under the train and her body was cut into two pieces. Accordingly, he submitted that the incident took place after the train started moving from Kamalganj Railway Station. ( 16 ) THE Assistant Stationmaster in his statement has admitted that during the course of stepping down from the train, sadhana Kumari became unbalanced and fell under the train and her body was cut into two pieces. There was a child with her and a bag also. Admittedly, she was valid ticket holding passenger. ( 17 ) FROM the statements of the witnesses, it is established that Sadhana Kumari was stepping down from the train and at kamalganj Railway Station when she fell down under the train. Admittedly, she was holding one child and one bag also. The statement of the independent witness, namely, Brindavan cannot be disbelieved, who has stated that when the train was approaching the platform, she accidentally fell down from the train, due to sudden jerk and jolt and her saree hooked with the compartment door, consequently, she came under the wheel and died, from which it appears that she was careful to step down from the train at the platform but due to sudden jerk and jolt in the train, she became unbalanced and came under the wheel and died. She was having a child with her. Certainly, she might have been careful for her child also. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that deceased was negligent and injury caused to her was self-inflicted injury. The case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was the victim of an untoward incident as defined under section 123 (c) (2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Railway claims Tribunal. The instant first appeal from order is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .