Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 591 (JHR)

Sufal Chaki v. Union of India

2019-02-28

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
ORDER : 1. This appeal has been preferred challenging the Order and Judgment dated 23.08.2013, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. TAU/RNC/2005/0010. 2. Claim application was filed by applicant alleging therein that on 29.12.2004, his father Bijay Pani Chaki along with other family members were coming from Jharsuguda to Sonua Station by Train No. 8312 DN Ispat Express. His father Bijay Pani Chaki fell down while getting down at Sonua and came under the wheels of the train and died in hospital. In support of his claim, the applicant also enclosed copies of Fardbayan, FIR and Railway pass. 3. The respondent – Railway filed written statement on 04.05.2009 denying therein claim of the claimants on the ground that the alleged incident does not come under the definition of ‘Untoward Incident’ as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act. The alleged incident took place due to negligent act of the deceased as he was detraining from the running train. The incident is clearly a self-inflected injury and coming under the proviso (b) of Section 124A of the Railways Act. Respondent-Railway further alleged that they cannot be held liable for the negligence and unlawful acts of the deceased. 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues. (1) Whether the deceased Bijay Pani Chaki, s/o Late Sukh Lal Chaki was a bona-fide passenger as alleged? (2) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the Bijay Pani Chaki, s/o late Sukh Lal Chaki while travelling in Train No. 8312 DN Ispat Express on 29.12.2004 at Sonua Railway Station? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 5. After framing of the issues, the applicants/appellants furnished copies of documents and after examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and observed that deceased was a retired employee of the Railway and was travelling on Railway Pass No. 08A 596179, issued by DRM, Chakradharpur. An uncertified photocopy of the same has been annexed with the claim application which answered the issue no. 1 in favour of the applicant and as such, it has been held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. An uncertified photocopy of the same has been annexed with the claim application which answered the issue no. 1 in favour of the applicant and as such, it has been held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. While holding Issue No. 2 against the applicant, learned Tribunal held that the deceased fell down while getting down from a moving train with his unbooked luggage and came under wheels of the train and ultimately died. This is an act of gross negligence and comes under the definition of “self-inflicted injury” which is not covered under the definition of “untoward incident”. In the circumstances learned Tribunal has held that applicant is not entitled for any compensation and accordingly dismissed the same. 6. While assailing Judgment of learned Tribunal, Mr. Ganesh Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant/appellant submits that finding of the Tribunal is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that though the Tribunal has held in clear words that the deceased was having a valid Railway pass duly issued by the concerned DRM, it cannot be said that the deceased was not having a valid ticket and was not a bonafide passenger. Regarding second ground of rejection, learned counsel argues that this issue is also no more resintegra as it has elaborately been dealt with in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018(2) JBCJ 478 SC. Learned counsel further argues that his case is squarely covered by the said Judgment and as such Order and Judgment dated 23.08.2013, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. TAU/ RNC/ 2005/0010 is fit to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Railway vehemently opposes prayer and submission of the appellant and submits that claimant is not entitled for a single farthing as deceased was neither a bonafide passenger nor it was a case of untoward incident. Claimant has failed to prove his case for grant of compensation. Justifying impugned Award it has been argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in passing impugned Award. The alleged Railway pass was not certified and hence it cannot be treated to be a valid document for consideration that deceased was having a valid ticket/ pass and was a bonafide passenger. 8. Justifying impugned Award it has been argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in passing impugned Award. The alleged Railway pass was not certified and hence it cannot be treated to be a valid document for consideration that deceased was having a valid ticket/ pass and was a bonafide passenger. 8. Be that as it may, having heard both sides and perusing the records, I find force in submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The case of the appellant has not been considered in proper perspective. The main considerations for grant of compensation in this case are: (i) “one has to be a bonafide passenger having a valid ticket”. In the instant case admittedly the deceased was a bonafide passenger as he was having a valid pass. The pass which was recovered on the basis of which deceased was travelling, was issued by the DRM, Chaibasa, was not in dispute. Though the claimant produced uncertified copy of the Railway pass, the same cannot be disbelieved as nowhere it has come in the evidence or the finding of the Tribunal that it was not a valid pass issued by a competent authority and as such it can be comfortably said that the deceased passenger was having a valid ticket and was a bonafide passenger. (ii) The second element for grant of compensation is that case should have fallen under the purview of an untoward incident. The falling down from the train has not been disbelieved by the Tribunal rather it has been rejected on the ground that though it is a case of falling down from the train but it comes within the purview of gross negligence and as such applicant was held not entitled for any compensation. 9. Contention raised by the Railway is completely misconceived. The issue is now no more resintegra. It is an admitted fact that deceased was having Railway pass for journey. Merely on the ground of technicalities, the family members of the deceased cannot be allowed to suffer in a welfare legislation. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. The issue is now no more resintegra. It is an admitted fact that deceased was having Railway pass for journey. Merely on the ground of technicalities, the family members of the deceased cannot be allowed to suffer in a welfare legislation. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362 , it has been held at para-16.6 as under: “16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 10. I find that this case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court holds the incident in question to be an untoward incident and accordingly claimant is entitled to the compensation from Railways. I further find force in submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled for higher amount of compensation in view of amended Act. 11. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and as discussed hereinabove, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra), this Court holds the incident in question to be an untoward incident and thus the claimant is entitled to the compensation from Railways. 11. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and as discussed hereinabove, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra), this Court holds the incident in question to be an untoward incident and thus the claimant is entitled to the compensation from Railways. With respect to quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has held that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of accident but if the amount prescribed on the date of the award is higher than the amount payable on the date of the accident, then the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. It is relevant to quote para-15.4 of the said Judgment. “15.4. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards, which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714 and Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs. General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2017, decided on 25th April, 2017] stands explained accordingly. 12. It is well settled that appeal is the continuation of the Claim Petition and power of the Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the Claims Tribunal. Similar view has been taken in the case of Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir Vs. Sardar Gurpreet Singh reported in 2014(10) SCC 702 . Applying the principles laid down in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) in present case, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in case of death with effect from 01.01.2017. 13. As a sequel of aforesaid fact and circumstances, judicial pronouncements, this appeal is hereby allowed. Order and Judgment dated 23.08.2013, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. TAU/RNC/2005/0010 is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. As a sequel of aforesaid fact and circumstances, judicial pronouncements, this appeal is hereby allowed. Order and Judgment dated 23.08.2013, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. TAU/RNC/2005/0010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Needless to say that the entire amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimant within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after fulfilling the needful requirements regarding identity of the claimant. 14. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned. Appeal allowed.