Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1350 (GAU)

Union of India v. Sajeda Bibi

2012-12-19

ANIMA HAZARIKA

body2012
JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. An application-under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was filed by Musstt. Sajeda Bibi, the mother of the deceased Kukila Begum claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of her daughter who met her death in an untoward accident at Chautara Railway station while traveling by 704 Dn Siphung Passenger train. The brief facts of the case as set out in the application is that on 30.6.2008 while the deceased Kukila Begum was traveling with her mother with a valid journey ticket No. 25469 from Salakati Railway station to Chautara Railway station, she accidentally fell down from running 704 Dn Siphung Passenger train due to heavy rush of passenger and badly injured. She was shifted to Gossaigaon Civil Hospital for treatment where she died on the next day, i.e. on 1.7.2008. After receipt of the notice of the said claim application, the railway appeared and submitted written statement denying the alleged incident that the deceased had died due to the injury sustained by falling from 704 Dn Siphung Passenger train on 30.6.2008. They have also denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and prayed for dismissal of the application with cost. The Railway Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short), Guwahati Bench after consideration of the evidence placed on record by the applicant has arrived at the conclusion that on the relevant date, the deceased Kukila Begum was traveling in the train with her mother after purchasing the ticket. It has been proved that the deceased was traveling from Salakati Railway station to Chautara Railway station. It has also not been seriously opposed that the 704 Dn Siphung Passenger train does not stop at the Chautara Railway station. It has been proved that the deceased was going to Chautara Railway station from Salakati Railway station and that she fell down from the train due to heavy rush of passenger and badly injured and she succumbed to her injuries on the next day, i.e. 1.7.2008 at Gossaigaon RNB Civil Hospital, which would be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 ('Act' for short). With this finding, the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as per schedule to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was awarded. 2. With this finding, the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as per schedule to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was awarded. 2. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the Railway. 3. Heard Ms. U. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway. Also heard Ms. D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal that the deceased sustained injuries and as a result thereof died cannot be said to be on account of untoward incident. Further the Claims tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claimant has not proved the fact that her case does not fall under any of the exceptions under proviso to section 124(A) of the Act and therefore, compensation could not have been awarded under Section 124(A) of the Act. 5. Untoward incident has been defined under Section 123(c) as hereunder;-- 123.(c) "untoward incident" means-- 1 (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of the section 3 of the Terrorist and disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a 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, cloak room 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. 6. A bare perusal of the above definition of untoward incident would mean inter alia accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Thus any passenger who is traveling in a passengers train falls from the train accidentally it would be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. Section 124(A) provides for compensation on account of untoward incident. Thus any passenger who is traveling in a passengers train falls from the train accidentally it would be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. Section 124(A) provides for compensation on account of untoward incident. Section 124(A) being relevant is quoted hereunder;-- 124.A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.-- 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. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes-- (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. 7. This liability of the Railway to pay compensation under Section 124(A) is irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. Once it is found that there was an untoward incident, the Railway is liable to pay the compensation. 7. This liability of the Railway to pay compensation under Section 124(A) is irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. Once it is found that there was an untoward incident, the Railway is liable to pay the compensation. Exceptions from payment of compensation by Railway in cases of untoward incident is provided in proviso to Section 124(A), as quoted hereinabove, make it clear that the Railway administration shall not be liable to pay compensation on account of the death if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by him; self-inflicted injury; own criminal act, any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity or in any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. The Railway can escape liability of payment of compensation, only, if the aforesaid circumstances are proved by them. Incidences mentioned in the proviso to Section 124(A) of the Act being the exception to the general rule for payment of compensation for the death, the burden lies on the railway to prove any of these circumstances, which may fall within the exceptions. In the absence of any proof by the railway administration, it shall be presumed that the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. 8. In the present case in hand, the railway has not led any evidence to bring the case within the proviso to section 124(A) of the Act. Once it is found that the death was occurred on account of untoward incident, the direction for payment of compensation by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. The judgment of the Tribunal is well founded and is based on the materials placed on record. Hence, no interference is called for with the judgment so passed by the Tribunal. 9. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The claimant is entitled for the amount as directed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. No costs. Send down the lower court records forthwith. Appeal dismissed.