Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 685 (DEL)

Union of India v. Satish Kumar

2008-07-16

REKHA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Rekha Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Principal Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 18.2.2008. By virtue of the impugned order the respondent herein was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000 along with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of order till actual payment, for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, which occurred on 16.6.2004 involving the train 'Amritsar Express'. 2. It so happened that on 16.6.2004 the respondent boarded Amritsar Express train from Panipat bound for Delhi. When the train reached Sadar Bazar Railway Station the respondent who due to heavy rush was standing on the doorway got pushed by other passengers and consequently fell out of the moving locomotive. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a bona fide passenger. It is also not in dispute that because of fall from the train he suffered severe injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg. What has been disputed is the manner of the accident. As per the Railways, respondent was getting down from the moving train at Sadar Bazar Railway Station and in that process he sustained injuries. 3. A perusal of the judgment of Claims Tribunal shows that respondent-claimant in support of his case appeared as his own witness, while the Railways examined its booking clerk at Sadar Bazar Railway Station as RW 1, the Guard of the train as RW 2 and the Sub-Inspector of Police who had investigated the incident as RW 3. The respondent in his evidence before the Claims Tribunal stated that when the train was passing through Sadar Bazar Railway Station, due to jerk and also on being pushed by other passengers, he fell down from the train and received injuries. He also deposed that because of rush in the compartment, he could not get a seat and he had to travel the entire distance by standing. He denied the suggestion that he was alighting from the running train at Sadar Bazar Railway Station and in that process he sustained injuries. As regards the evidence from the side of railway administration, the booking clerk merely stated that he did not receive any information that a passenger had fallen from the train. He denied the suggestion that he was alighting from the running train at Sadar Bazar Railway Station and in that process he sustained injuries. As regards the evidence from the side of railway administration, the booking clerk merely stated that he did not receive any information that a passenger had fallen from the train. The guard of the train who deposed as RW 2 also stated that no incident of any person having fallen from the train was reported to him. The evidence of both these witnesses was of no assistance to the Railways specially when it was not disputing the factum of the accident. The Sub-Inspector of Police, RW 3 in his deposition said that as per his inquiry the respondent met with an accident while trying to board the running train. His evidence was totally at variance with the case set up by the Railways. As already noticed above, the railway administration had opposed the claim on the ground that the respondent was trying to alight from the moving train while RW 3 deposed that he was trying to board the running train. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Railway Claims Tribunal was fully justified in relying upon the evidence of the respondent who had proved on record the journey ticket, the authenticity of which was not questioned and had also categorically stated that it was due to heavy rush in the train and on being pushed by the passengers that he sustained injuries. He also brought on record the medical documents to show that his left leg was amputated below knee. Relying upon item No. 22 of Part III of the Schedule appended to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 to the respondent. I find no infirmity in the order. The case of the respondent is fully covered by Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 which makes the Railways liable to compensation in case a passenger sustains injuries when in the course of working a railway, an untoward incident occurs. 1,60,000 to the respondent. I find no infirmity in the order. The case of the respondent is fully covered by Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 which makes the Railways liable to compensation in case a passenger sustains injuries when in the course of working a railway, an untoward incident occurs. It is immaterial whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railways such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent 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. The proviso to the said section which denies compensation inter alia on the ground of self-inflicted injury or any criminal act of the passenger himself is not applicable to the case of the respondent in view of the evidence as discussed above. For the foregoing reasons, I find no infirmity in the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.