Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 159 (RAJ)

Ghisi Bai v. Union of India

2014-01-10

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal arises out of the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Original Application No. OA-II-34/2007, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellants-claimants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the appellants-claimants had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal alleging interalia that on 18.11.2006, the deceased along with his wife, son and other villagers had purchased the tickets for the journey from Sawaimadhopur to Indergarh by a passenger train. While they were waiting for the train to come at platform No.2, the deceased had gone to attend the nature's call and while doing so, the Rajdhani Express hit the deceased. The deceased therefore, sustained serious injuries, and died on the spot. The said claim petition was resisted by the respondent denying the allegations, and further contending interalia that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger, and that the death of the deceased had occurred due to his own negligence for which the respondent administration cannot be held liable. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has dismissed the claim petition vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ajay Shukla for the appellants that though the Tribunal had held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, had committed an error in not awarding compensation for his death. According to him, the deceased was hit by the train-Rajdhani Express and had died on the spot as a result of multiple grievous injuries, and therefore, the appellants were entitled to get the compensation under the Railways Act. However, the learned counsel Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for the respondent placing heavy reliance on the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act submitted that the deceased had died on account of his own negligence and criminal act, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 4. In the instant case, it appears from the impugned order that the deceased was going to travel alongwith his family members and therefore they had purchased the tickets for their journey from Sawaimadhopur to Indergarh by a passenger train. 4. In the instant case, it appears from the impugned order that the deceased was going to travel alongwith his family members and therefore they had purchased the tickets for their journey from Sawaimadhopur to Indergarh by a passenger train. The Tribunal therefore had held that the deceased was holding a valid ticket and was a bonafide passenger within the meaning of Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act, 1989. However, as per the definition of the "passenger" under Section 2 (29) of the said Act, the passenger means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. In the instant case, admittedly the deceased had not boarded the train, and he was not travelling in the train, when the accident occurred, though he had purchased the tickets. As per the case of the appellant also, when his family members were waiting on the platform No.2 for the passenger train to arrive, the deceased had gone to attend his nature's call and was hit by the train-Rajdhani Express. Thus admittedly he was not travelling in the train, and therefore, could not be said to be a "passenger" under Section 2 (29) of the said Act. 5. It further transpires from the impugned order that the driver of the Rajdhani Express, Shri Bhagwan Singh was examined before the Tribunal, who had stated interalia that the deceased was run over by his train, as the deceased was sitting on the railway track. The said driver after giving description of the deceased, who was sitting on the track, had further stated that the said person (the deceased) had not removed himself from the track despite his blowing of the horn, and therefore, he was run over by the train engine. The Tribunal, therefore, relying upon the said evidence of the driver as also on the statements of the appellants to the effect that the deceased had gone to attend nature's call, had come to the conclusion that the deceased had received the injuries on account of the criminal act of trespass under Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989 and such incident was covered under the proviso to Section 124-A of the said Act, disentitling the claimants to receive the compensation for the death of the deceased. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. 6. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. 6. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******