FAO No.3168 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 3168 of 2008
Date of decision: September 15, 2008
Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
.....APPELLANT
Versus
Rani w/o late Sh.Mukesh Kumar and Others.
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
PRESENT: Mr Sandeep Vermani, Advocate
for the appellant.
T.P.S.MANN, J.
Claim application filed by the claimants-respondents,
whereby they claimed an amount of Rs. four lac as compensation from
the appellant, on account of death of Mukesh Kumar, in an untoward
incident on 1.8.2006, was accepted by learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide impugned
judgment dated 29.4.2008.
The case of the claimants-respondents was that the deceased
was travelling by train from Barnala to Bathinda and when the train
reached Bhuchho Mandi railway station, he alighted from the train to
take water. When he was in the process of boarding the train, it started
moving, as a result of which he could not board the train and fell down.
FAO No.3168 of 2008 -2-
As he had received injuries, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Bathinda,
where he died. It was also pleaded by the claimants that the deceased
used to travel on monthly seasonal ticket, which was valid up to
2.8.2006. Claiming that they were widow, parents and minor children of
the deceased, who died in an untoward incident, the claimants sought
compensation from the Railways-appellant.
The railways-appellant opposed the claim and denied that
the deceased was travelling from Barnala to Bathinda or that he was
having a valid monthly seasonal ticket. It was also denied, if the
deceased died on account of sustaining injuries due to falling from the
train. In fact, no such incident had taken place on 1.8.2006.
On the basis of evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal
held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and on account of
accidental fall, he sustained injuries, which proved fatal. The incident
was squarely covered within the definition of “untoward incident” as
given under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act and therefore, the
claimants, who were dependents on the deceased were entitled to a sum
of Rs. four lac as compensation.
I have heard learned counsel for the Railways-appellant.
On the basis of evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal
was justified in holding that the deceased was travelling in a passenger
train and when it reached railway station, Bhuchho Mandi, he got down
FAO No.3168 of 2008 -3-
for a while, but while he was trying to board the train once again, the
train had, in the meantime, started moving slowly and he accidentally
fell from the footboard and received injuries. This act of the deceased
could not be termed as a criminal act, on the other hand, it fell within the
definition of “untoward incident” as contained in Section 123 (c) (2) of
the Railways Act. On account of accidental falling from the train, the
victim received injuries, which ultimately proved fatal.
No evidence has been led by the Railways-appellant to show
that any of the respondents was not dependent upon the deceased.
Moreover, for such an untoward incident, the Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990, as amended in 1997
provided a sum of Rs. four lac as compensation on account of death of
railway passenger. The said amount has been granted as compensation to
the claimants-respondents.
No ground for interference in the impugned order is made
out. The appeal is without any merit and therefore, dismissed.
September 15, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE