-1-
Court No. - 24
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 364 of 2002
Petitioner :- Union Of India Through General Manager N.R.New Delhi
Respondent :- Jogeshwar Prasad And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- A.K.Srivastava
*********
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1997 against the judgment and award dated 15.04.2002 passed in
Claim Case No. O.A. 9800147 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow
awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest
@9%.
The brief facts of the case are that one Sri Ranjeet Kumar aged about
18 years of age was travelling by 377-Up Triveni Express from Rai
Bareilly to Lucknow on 17.09.1996. Near the signal of Harchandpur
Railway Station, the victim fallen down and died on the spot. He was
holding a valid ticket no.51865 which was on record. So, he was a
bonafide passenger. For the negligence, the Tribunal has awarded statutory
compensation of Rs.4.0 lacs against the appellant-railway. Not being
satisfied, the appellant – railway has filed the present appeal.
None appeared on behalf of the opposite party. However, Sri Anil
Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-railway submits that the
deceased had fallen down due to his own negligence. He was travelling on
the foot board of the train which is prohibited in view of the Section 156 of
-2-
the Railways Act, 1989 read with section 154. He also submits that in
Railways, travelling on roof, foot board and engine is prohibited. Section
124-A of the Act provided the exception for the self injury and Criminal
Act. However, on the specific quarry from the Bench, he accepted that the
deceased was the bonafide passenger of the train no. 377 -Up, Triveni
Express. Lastly, he submits that since the deceased alone was responsible
for the aforesaid negligence, as such, the claimants are not entitled to any
compensation.
By considering the arguments and the material available on record, it
appears that the deceased was the bonafide passenger. No material was
brought on record to prove that this is the case of death or suicide or death
resulting from any criminal Act. The deceased was returning from a Rally
organized by Bahujan Samajwadi Party. So, he was having a political
affiliation and aspiration. There was no question for committing suicide.
The accident occurred when suddenly the driver of the train applied the
break near the signal of Harchandpur Railway Station. The deceased who
was travelling on the foot board of the train fallen down on the track and
died on the spot.
This Court in the case of Smt. Akhtari v. Union of India (FAFO No.
100 of 2003) observed that there is no restriction with regard to sale of
ticket for unreserved compartment. Railway does not provide any
mechanism for the automatic closer of the doors of the compartment when
a train leaves the platform like Metro train. In the absence of appropriate
safeguard unreserved compartments are over crowded compelling the
people to stand in front of the door of the compartment.
-3-
It is settled law that right to life is fundamental right, guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Once the Railway issues the
tickets to board the train, then it is the duty of the Railway to take
necessary measures for safety and security of the passengers. It is for the
Railway to take steps or provide appropriate measures or infrastructures, so
that whenever the train moves from the platform, the doors are closed.
Whether it is reserved or unreserved compartment, the life of citizen
cannot be put to risk. Lives of people travelling in reserved compartment
cannot be treated superior to the people travelling in unreserved
compartment. So far as security measures are concerned, that should be
taken by the Railway uniformly for the reserved and unreserved
compartments. Necessary steps must be taken by the Railway through
mechanical device or by appointment of appropriate staff, so that
whenever, train moves from the platform, the doors must be closed and on
arrival of train on platform, it may be opened. The Railway or the
Government cannot shirk from its responsibility with regard to the safety
and security of the passengers travelling by train or using the platform.
Needless to mention that as per legal maxim- Salus Populi Est Supreme
Lex means “regard for the public welfare is the highest law”
Needless to mention that the lives of the people travelling in second
class or upper class are equally precious for the respective family and
nation. It does not make any difference as to whether the passengers are
travelling in the second class or upper class. The burden lies on the railway
to make necessary arrangements by mechanical / electronic / manual
device so that the even to departure of the train from platform, the doors
are shut and on arrival at the station, it may be open. Further, it is the duty
of the railway to make necessary arrangements to regulate the safe entry of
the passengers in the compartments. Section 57, 58 and 59 have been
provided in the Act to secure safety measures and welfare of the people at
large. The burden lies on the Railway to give effect the statutory provisions
in its letter and spirit.
We expect that railway shall look into this aspect of the matter for
safety and security of the passengers by taking necessary steps at the
earliest.
-4-
In the light of the above discussion and by considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the
order of the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal is hereby
sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.
The appeal filed by the Railway department is devoid of merit. It is
accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 02.02.2010
VNP/-