Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1792 (BOM)

Rekha w/o Pradeep Suryvanshi v. Union of India

2019-07-31

M.G.GIRATKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : The present appeal is against the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No. OA (IIu)/NGP/2014/0152. 2. The appellant was travelling on 2552014 along with her husband and one friend with a valid railway ticket. They boarded at Itwari and going to Tumsar by Passenger Train No. 58206. There was heavy rush in the train. At the time of alighting, due to heavy rush, they could not alight from the train on platform side, so they decided to alight on offside of the platform. The applicant's husband alighted first. While the applicant was alighting, she fell down from the running train. Her both legs came under the wheel and sustained injuries. Therefore, claim application was filed. 3. The respondent – railway appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objection. As per the contentions of the respondent, claimant/appellant is not entitled for claim under exception to Section 124A of the Railways Act. Learned Tribunal relied on the defence and came to the conclusion that the appellant tried to alight from the off side when the train was running and, therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation from the respondent and dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel Ms. Dhande appearing with learned counsel Shri Sable for the appellant. She has submitted that due to heavy rush in the train, the appellant and her husband could not alight from the platform side and, therefore, they alighted from the off side of the platform. While alighting, the appellant fell down and injury was caused to her. Her both legs came under the wheel of the train. Her both legs were amputated and, therefore, claim was preferred. Learned counsel has pointed out decisions of this Court in the case of (1) Shilpa @ Shipra Wd/o Nilesh Chaudhari and ors. Vs. Union of India in First Appeal No. 1110/2017 dated 2332018 and (2) Union of India Vs. Kamal and others [ 2014 ACJ 1579 ]. Learned counsel for appellant has also pointed out judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jameela and others Vs. Union of India [ 2010 ACJ 2453 ]. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Jameela and others Vs. Union of India that “..... Kamal and others [ 2014 ACJ 1579 ]. Learned counsel for appellant has also pointed out judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jameela and others Vs. Union of India [ 2010 ACJ 2453 ]. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Jameela and others Vs. Union of India that “..... Assuming that deceased fell from the train due to his own negligence, it is not a criminal act so as to attract clause (c) of proviso to Section 124A. Therefore railway is liable for compensation.” 5. Heard learned counsel Shri Lambat for the respondent. He vehemently argued that the appellant fell down at the time of alighting when train started, therefore, injuries sustained by her are self inflicted injuries. 6. Definition of self inflicted injury means when a person willingly caused injury to himself or herself is stated to be a self inflicted injury. There is no dispute that the appellant sustained injuries while alighting the train from the off side of platform. In view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Jameela and others Vs. Union of India (supra), even assuming that passenger fell from the train due to his own negligence, it is not a criminal act on his/her part. Hence, defence raised from the side of the respondent cannot be accepted. This Court in the cases of Shilpa @ Shipra Wd/o Nilesh Chaudhari and ors. Vs. Union of India and Union of India Vs. Kamal and others (supra) has held that the claimants cannot be denied the benefits only because the passenger alighted from the offside of platform. No eye witness is examined by the respondent to prove their defence. Hence, in that view of the evidence and in view of the cited decisions, the appeal is allowed. 7. The impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. The claim application is allowed as prayed. 8. The claimant/appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/as per Part III of Schedule entry no. 20 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules. Respondent shall deposit the said amount within a period of four months, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till the realization of whole amount.