Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1960 (ALL)

Union of India v. Raj Kumari & Ors.

2010-07-06

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, SATISH CHANDRA

body2010
Heard Mohd. Abid Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the claimants - respondents. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal relates to the accidental death of Mandrika Singh, who was alleged to have been travelling in Sabarmati Express on 08.06.1997. It is pleaded that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel from Ahmedabad to Gorakhpur. Before arrival of the train at Barabanki Railway Station, the deceased with intention to change the compartment came at the gate and because of pushing back by the crowd he fell down from the compartment and succumbed to injuries. The dependents of the deceased approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal after recording evidence and providing opportunity of hearing to the parties came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the claimants are entitled for compensation. The Tribunal has awarded maximum compensation of Rs.4.0 lacs to the dependents of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. While assailing the impugned award, Mohd. Abid Ali, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the doctor was not examined to prove the injuries and deceased suffered injuries because of his own fault. There was no occasion for the deceased to come to gate in a moving train. Hence, the deceased suffered injuries because of his own fault. It has also been stated that since postmortem report has not been proved, death could not be assessed from some other reason. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (27) LCD 240; Akhtari v. Union of India and submitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and since he fell down from the train because of over crowded compartment, the dependents are entitled for payment of compensation. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the present case, it has not been disputed that the deceased fell down from the train and succumbed to injuries later on. Once the accident is admitted, then even if postmortem report was not proved and Tribunal has relied upon the evidence filed by the parties, the claimants have a rightful claim of compensation. 6. In the present case, it has not been disputed that the deceased fell down from the train and succumbed to injuries later on. Once the accident is admitted, then even if postmortem report was not proved and Tribunal has relied upon the evidence filed by the parties, the claimants have a rightful claim of compensation. Moreover, burden to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he is not entitled for compensation for any reason whatsoever lies on the shoulder of the appellant as held in the case of Akhtari (supra). For convenience, paragraph 62 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "We also reiterate the observations made in the preceding paras that keeping in view the statutory provisions (supra) it is the duty of the railway to make necessary arrangement to regulate the entry of passengers in the compartment. The lives of the people travelling in second class or upper class are equally precious for the respective family and nation. It does not make any difference as to whether the passengers are travelling in the second class or upper class. The burden lies on the railway to make necessary arrangement by mechanical/electronic/manual device so that in the event of departure of the train from platform, the doors are shut and on arrival at the station, it may be open. Further, it is the duty of the railway to make necessary arrangements to regulate the safe entry of the passengers in the compartments. We expect that railway shall look into this aspect of the matter for safety and security of the passengers by taking necessary steps at the earlies." 7. Nothing has been pointed out as to what prejudice has been caused because of non-production of doctor to prove the postmortem report. Parties have filed their affidavits and relying upon the affidavit filed by the parties, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the claimants are entitled for compensation. 8. Attention of the Court has not been drawn to any other pleading or material on record which may establish that before the Tribunal, the appellant denied the contents of the postmortem report. A vague assertion was made by the appellant denying the authenticity of the document without assigning any reason. 9. 8. Attention of the Court has not been drawn to any other pleading or material on record which may establish that before the Tribunal, the appellant denied the contents of the postmortem report. A vague assertion was made by the appellant denying the authenticity of the document without assigning any reason. 9. One of the argument advanced by the appellant's counsel is that interest should have been given from the date of the award. The submission does not seem to be sustainable on account of the fact that by catena of judgment of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is settled law that interest may be awarded from the date of moving of application before the Tribunal. 10. Before parting with the case, we may also take note of the fact that the proceeding before the Tribunal is not guided in strict sense on the basis of the procedural law contained in Evidence Act or the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal may adopt a just and fair procedure subject to limitation contained in the Act to decide a dispute for payment of compensation. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal while rendering the award does not seem to be violative of principle of natural justice. 11. In view of the above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 12. Let the amount deposited in this Court be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith and the Tribunal may proceed in terms of the award.