Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 853 (PAT)

Mostt. Madho Devi v. Union Of India

2007-04-30

REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.4.2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No. OA-9800/2004 whereby and whereunder it has dismissed the claim of the applicant for compensation on account of death of Gopal Roy, a passenger in an untoward incident. 2. The case of the appellant is that the deceased Gopal Roy was her husband. On 21.11.1997 he was going from Goroul Railway Station to Hajipur Railway Station by 515 Up Muzaffarpur-Sonpur passenger when due to heavy rush and jerk in the train he fell down from the compartment and died on the spot. He was a bona fide passenger having a valid 2nd class ticket. The appellant, hence, claimed in her application from the Tribunal a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs on account of the death of her husband by filing an application with copy of the post mortem report. 3. The respondent Railway contested the claim by filing a written statement stating, inter alia, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no such incident occurred and there was no report regarding the incident in the Station diary of Goroul Railway Station. 4. The Tribunal after considering the affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger but further held that the case does not fall within the meaning of untoward incident as defined under section 123(c) and that there was no negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. It, accordingly, by the impugned order dismissed the claim 5. Being aggneved by the order of the Tribunal the appellant filed the appeal on 15.10.2004 and as the appeal was filed after the period of limitation of 90 days of the order. A petition has also been filed for condoning the delay on the ground, inter alia, of her illness for which she has filed a medical certificate. 6. Learned counsel for both the sides were heard. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has passed the order without properly appreciating and considering the materials on record and law involved. He has misinterpreted the provisions of the Railway Act and that he has considered the written statement which is based on no material. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent defended the order. 9. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has passed the order without properly appreciating and considering the materials on record and law involved. He has misinterpreted the provisions of the Railway Act and that he has considered the written statement which is based on no material. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent defended the order. 9. Considering the grounds mentioned in the condonation petition of the case, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 10. As regards the merit of the case, it appears from the perusal of the impugned order that during the enquiry by th Tribunal, the appellant filed the affidavits of the appellant herself and of one Mathura Singh, who was a fellow passenger in the said compartment. The appelant has stated that her husband was going to Hajipur Railway Station from Goroul Railway Station by the above train, when due to rush in the compartment he fell d.own and died. The witness Mathura Singh has stated that he was accompanying the deceased and both were in the same compartment of the above train and he was standing behind the deceased and that there was rush in the compartment and on account of push by the crowd the deceased suddenly fell down from the running train near outer signal. He has further stated that in spite of alarm raised by them the train did not stop and when it stopped at the next station Bhagwanpur they returned to Goroul Station and informed the Station Master and then reached the spot and found Gopal Roy dead. 11. Thus, the witness Mathura Singh is a very competent witness and there appears nothing to disbelieve him and the statement of this witness is sufficient to prove the incident. It appears from the copy of the document filed by the respondent in this Court that the Commercial Inspector, Northern-Eastern Railway, had filed an affidavit before the Tribunal that no such incident as mentioned in the Station diary dated 21.11.1997 of Goroul Station, had taken place and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. But from this affidavit of Mathura Singh it appears that he had reported the matter to the Station Master. So, if, on the part of failure of the Station Master, no entry about the accident was made in the Station diary, it cannot be said that actually no incident had taken place. But from this affidavit of Mathura Singh it appears that he had reported the matter to the Station Master. So, if, on the part of failure of the Station Master, no entry about the accident was made in the Station diary, it cannot be said that actually no incident had taken place. The Station diary was also not produced to show that there was no such entry. The impugned order also shows that the Tribunal has held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. So, on the basis of the affidavit it cannot be said that no such incident took place and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The affidavit of the appellant also shows that she had received the dead body from the G.R.RS. where case was lodged. This also proves that the deceased died in railway accident. 12. The impugned order shows that as the witness Mathura Singh had stated that due to rush the deceased was standing at the gate and the maximum number of passenger in a compartment has been fixed and in spite of that the deceased boarded the compartment he himself was negligent and if the injury has been caused to him that would amount to self inflicted injury disentitling the appellant to any compensation. 13. It is a common experience that as compared to the number of passengers, the number of train is much less. Tickets are also issued without taking into consideration the capacity of a train. So, normally there is rush in almost every train specially in the passenger train. The evidence also shows that the deceased was an Electrician working in Hajipur and he used to go daily. Therefore, there was compulsion also for him to go by a train. Under such circumstances, if the deceased was travelling by the train which was crowded and on account of heavy rush he was standing near the gate from where he suddenly fell, on account of push by the crowd, it cannot be said that he was negligent or that the injury caused to him was self inflicted injury or his act amounted to any offence under the Act. Thus, as regards the question as to whether the case falls within the definition of untoward incident under sec. Thus, as regards the question as to whether the case falls within the definition of untoward incident under sec. 125(d) of the Railway Act, Sec. 123(c)(ii) clearly mentions that it also means accidental fall of any passenger from a train carrying passengers and as already mentioned as the compartment was over-crowded the deceased had to stand near the gate and on account of push by the crowd he suddenly fell down. Therefore, this case definitely falls within the meaning of untoward incident. 14. The Tribunal, as clearly mentioned, has held that the Railway Administration was not negligent but as provided under sec. 124A of the Railways Act, the dependent of a passenger is entitled to compensation if an untoward incident occurs whether or not there has been any wrongful act, negligent or default on the part of the Railway Administration. So, even if there was no negligence on the part of the respondent, the appellant is entitled to compensation under sec. 124 of the Act. 15. It may be mentioned here that the Tribunal has observed that the applicant/appellant has a son and a minor daughter but they have not been made co-applicants. But Sec. 125(d) of the Railways Act clearly provides that where death has resulted, an application under Sec. 125 can be filed by any dependent. So, there is no infirmity in the application in this regard. 16. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to compensation under Sec. 124(a) of the Railways Act for the death of her husband and the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting her application. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for fixing the amount of compensation. The amount may be fixed without delay after hearing both the parties. 17. The appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above.