(By Sri. i\iiS,Sanjay Gpwda; Adv.) This MFA is filed under section 23(1) ofV.s.i§ail}aa'=,: Claims Tribunal Act against the ;iudgme_ri%; 23.03.2009
passed in GA No.76/2007 on the ‘file eji’..t’nei’…i
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, disnfiis-si’ng”~i.thse
application filed under section 1670f”the7;RET._}ix::_t_’for
payment of compensation’
This appeal coming on f0’r_i’i*nal dispdsal tih:isli.d’a.§;,VVVti#e %
Court delivered the following:
Appellants filed a cAlAai_nl’1_ 16 of
the Railways before the
Railway Clairns VBench,. (hereinafter
referred wife and children of
one M.Ana’iid,’ wh’0»_dVie’d ti’i2«–._’:Q’?’}’.O2.2OO7, while travelling as
a passenger: ‘-inV_V”‘traii’i TNo.283 from R.Nulenur to
The clalirn petition having been contested by
tine dismissed, being aggrieved by which,
_ the a’p.plic_arit.s””have filed this appeal.
In the claim application it was stated that, the
…_'”‘del::eased was traveliing from R.Nuieni..ir ta flavanagere by
emf
f
z’;
10. Awe: is the mother of the deceased M.A.h__and.
she has deposed that, herseif and her son Ahahd “tt’e§*’eiTled
in train No.283 from R.Nuienur to Dax~iehaVg.er’e””i ”
0?.O2.2DO’?, on a II Ciass ticket and”whiie-‘_;trat}eii.i’;f:d ihjthe V’
train, the deceased was thirsty
was aiighting from the .dr«i._nk-._trtewwfiki/a’te’t ate
Kodaganur Raiiway Sta’t.izdn, w§”1ete’-hie’-»fe|l ddwn. and died at
the spot. According td”he’r,t’he train moved
on her son, vxihetdil-ed
is the inquest report
and Mln the crossexaminationg.
AW1 haisstated to alight at Davangere and
thetmcidenti o»c,cu”r’red’V’at.Kodaganoor, where the train was
stdbpeidi:’Afo:Vr”a.b0ut 3 minutes. Sgidghas further deposed
the_t,.iA son getting down from the train, even
thdt:gh__”she” was sitting in her seat and after drinking
water,”her son boarded the train and due to the jerk of the
“;t’r’aih:, he siipped and feti down and thereafter she shouted
” ~~ehd the train was stopped and that, she gave a complamt
2:
3
2:
to the Raifway officiais. She has stated that,
lying outside the track after the incident M
not observe whether the neck was sepectat-eo’~..troVm.Athe
body. She has denied the so_gge.stéiA.oné’-_tha’t;.4iw.e-tiistoni
committed suicide. Presence of AW”: in thettrain as ‘$3
passenger has not been disputed and’et/’en:.’.=oti;;ert%{1ise is V
well established.
12. AW–.2,v B.K:.L–ath:a~ town, who has
stated that,’ and situation
she concIu€d..edi:.4.tVhatit’isiiastiiVi:”c’i’defl;:a’se. She has admitted
that, gghéiihagttino ntedic’a1.V:_knovi)iedVQe and her opinion is not
based the To a question, whether
Station Master’ that the person has died due to
ansi}ve*:****’is ‘No’. She has admitted the ticket
the packet of the deceased. It has been
ma_de c§ea’r’3.th}at; she recorded the statement of AW–1, To
‘a__a spectf§_c question, whether there was any statement
A with regard to act of suicide by the deceased, the
S answer is ‘No’. id}/,6
at”
J
13, RW~»1; Station Master, Kodagano_r”v:’t2-ays’d.ebo::ed«:
that, on 07.02.2002? white he was:V’onV dotygpa-:sse_h’g_e.r:train’:
No.283 arrived at 8:40 hours after’g’d*eba0Vr’t'{ire;’~.
immediateiy the train was and-theeiofi the 0′
train informed through’.yyaikige’+’taa!-{i’e that, on’e”~pe’rson was
ran over by the train on .;o’r’f” of””p!_atform and he
went to the spot and_f.ou_n~d one maie”~-dead body, aged
about 25 yeaiisy’eutintogtxéio”bie’Ces’:*aridtying on the side of
the piatforhn taken by him with
regarddvtoivhagyiingiviysent and a case being
registered. – report has been marked as
Ex.RV–_lu. RW3 Vhasdadrn_itte’d that, he was not an eyewitness
*’~..,_to §_n:<:idr_ent tyhieh–«'occurred on 07.02.2007 and that he
«::am.e t-oV4'i<n:o.yii"'of the incident when he was informed by the
.g*i:e'r.d th're.:§gh:=.yyaikie–takie.
RW~2; Syed Mukhtar, passenger guard in train
0' from Arsikere to Hubii on 07.02.2007, has deposed
.«:_yV_t_hat, the train ieft Arsikere at 5:30 hours and reached
Kodaganur at 8:39 hours and the scheduie stoppage of the
,9
*5
/to
10
train is one minute. Due to ASP in Coach _
he got down from the train immediateiy
ACP and peopie came running anti» info,rn’i:e”cio_t’hat-.one~-.,_£:o:;{oit
had faiien on the off side. He _found–.tfje
died on the spot, which he to the
Station Master through beiinov told by
the Station Master to started at
8:49 hours. journal. In the
cross~examii§ati’o_hH.he”‘has’:’aoVn1’itt’eo”§th’at, he came to know
of the train taking motion.
He has adtnitted’ not an eyewitness to the
incident _Vand4″‘th_eit=hve is a technician. He has also
:_f’S”admi’tte4d:,,,thathe havsmnot given any statement before the
i3oii’:;ef’
B3/referring to ,oara~117 of E><,A-2, the Ttihunai
=heAidVV'that, the deceased has committed suicide by
.'.scoi*n:ing"AAacross train No.283, as he was disgusted in iife, as
"..:;oe't"the opinion of the panchas.
2
is
11
16. In my opinion, the Tribunal has erred. in
holding that the applicants are not entitled
compensation under S.124A of the Act. ”
Railway Administration was that,_.~l’»t.._ls 2
negligence of the deceased the acc’é«deh_tl
is also contended that, it ls a
neither RW-1 nor RW~2 were tVhe.ue$,re¥”e«1?ltness”tether fall of
the deceased from the isabsolutely no
evidence to suppdrt,__thetease:.§;fl.l?all;lsr§ar§.?s~th’a’t the accident
took place it in its reply
statement.___ AVW1ll«1.:s5___an:”e§/ed’ witeness and her evidence
p roba bl lses -thee u”nt.’:m_!a rd’ n_c’l’den’t.
17, Chap_:ter.’.XIi’I. the Railways Act, 1989 deals
:_v:”V \y’,,\%/E_tI’} ggabvélclty o’l’A’l5ia’iltxvay Admlnistratlon for Death and
‘Ilnjuryte due to Accidents. “Unteward éhciderst”
as d’e§inedV.th’ejz:eln, also means and includes the accidental
dd’-,.«.4_fa.lllng at’ .a_ny passenger from a train carrying passengers.
I:5%’dé~spd’tably, train l\ld.283 is a passenger train. 3,124.6. is
‘J i
with regard :0 Compensation olii a;:,::o:;in{:»’—s,mte~igva.{{l.l
incident.
18. There is no ;.denlal:o%’– fa.e_t that’th.e..deceased
had a valid ticket (Exf\’–Zl_}-a’n_d3ljrav’ell_led’from R.Nulenur
upto Kodaganurg’Thereitolfeiiiiéej plassenger as defined
under S.2(2.9)’l’e.f ithe purpose of 8.12-4A
as clarified.bv’~.the’*lE;<.pla–nation 'i1?t.héreunder.
19; In zA.idiij.EtA'ia;"e*i*HERs (supra), the liability of
the R,ai.lvvays" respeitt «elf passengers falling down from
ll"running3-T"=l:rai.n while' travelling on valid ticket was
e::oln.sildete'dJ.vvvlthiiieference to provisions under S4123; 124A
and-1lS4v_.ofth~'elAct and it was held as follows:
manner in which the accident is sought to be
V "reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was
"standing at the open door of the train Compartment
from where he fell down, is Called by the railway itself
as negligence. New negligence of this kind which is not
very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing
as a criminal act mentioned in clause (C) to the previso
to section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under Clause
{C} must have an element of malicious: intent or rnens
%
éxxx'
4!'
,9».
15
fault on the part of the Railways and it is a case of suicide
or the fall was on account of carelessness and oe.gllg4ei2;:e
of the deceased is based on total misconceptio..ri:”of”l%_a’E~l:y;ra’g{_”‘ .
and is not supported by any e\{idenCe,.'”be–slcles::b-eingu it
contrary to E><.R~1,
In the result, the appea.il:.'i'si»allowed' wti:l:_hsand V
the impugned Ol'd€l'/aW8.lfVCl is
The application j'~.befQifie:ai:he"5lffiibunal stands
allowed. The3._.tes:pohde:i*1t isllltllrecteldlutolpay Rs.4,00,000/-
with 60/; inteVifs§;*.t;"'fton5'thVé':.Vl_date'l'oftfifiling of the application
before the T_tibo_haVl_Vtilal th:e"'d__ate of payment.
% Sd§/..