The High Court
Case Details
1 &M) FAO-115-2018 (O&M [218] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA FAO-115 Date of De 115-2018 (O&M) of Decision : 21.03.2025 Nisha Seth a Seth Union of In n of India versus …Appellant ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Atul Bhatia, Advocate for ate for the appellant. Mr. Parvesh Kumar Saini, Bhardwaj, Advocate for the res Saini, Advocate with Mr. Ashutos the respondent-UOI. shutosh *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] Challenge is to Award dated 0 ated 04.08.2017 passed by the Railwa Railway Claims Trib s Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chand Chandigarh. [2] Claim petition was filed seek d seeking compensation on account o ount of death of Vi of Vinod Kumar. As per the claima claimant, Vinod Kumar was working a rking as Car Seat C Seat Cover Maker at Rajpura. He h He has daily travelling from Amba Ambala Cantt. to t. to Rajpura and was holding M ing Monthly Season Ticket (MST (MST) No.903454 45457 valid from 13.03.2014 to 14 to 12.04.2014. On 21.03.201 3.2014, deceased b ased boarded Train No.14526 from from Rajpura. While the train wa ain was passing thr ng through Station Yard, Ambala Cit ala City, Vinod Kumar fell down fro n from moving Tr ng Train at KM No.269/28 and die d died on the spot. During physic physical search of th h of the dead body of the deceased, M sed, Monthly Season Ticket as detaile detailed hereinabov nabove was recovered. Claimant thus nt thus, claimed that the deceased bein d being a bona fide fide passenger having lost his life i s life in an untoward incident involvin volving railways, sh , she is entitled to compensation. [3] RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Claim petition was resisted by ted by Railways, claiming that decease eceased &M) FAO-115-2018 (O&M 2 was travell travelling on MST from Rajpura to A a to Ambala Cantt. Unauthorizedly, h edly, he tried to deb to deboard at Ambala City that too fro too from the off side and thus, he cann e cannot be stated to ated to have died in an untoward incide igent. incident as he himself was negligent. [4] Tribunal framed following issu ng issues:- “1. Whether the deceased w sed was a bonafide passenger of th of the rain at the time of incide cident? 2. Whether the alleged inc d incident is covered within the amb ambit of Section 123(c) read w ad with Section 124-A of the Railwa ailway Act? 3. Whether the applicant cant was the sole dependent of th of the deceased? 4. Relief. ” [5] MST. [6] Issue No.1 was decided in fa in favour of the claimant in view o view of While deciding Issue Nos.2 Nos.2 & 3, Tribunal held that th that the deceased de ased deliberately alighted from the mo the moving train from the wrong side o side of the platform latform. The same being not permi permissible under the Rules, decease eceased cannot be ot be said to have lost his life in an unt an untoward incident as he himself wa self was gent. negligent. [7] While assailing the impugned ugned order, counsel for the appella ppellant relies upon s upon ratio of law laid down by Supr y Supreme Court in the case of ‘Unio Union of India versus Rina Devi’, (2019) 3 S 3 Supreme Court Cases 572. He submits tha its that a death or injury caused to sed to the passenger in the course o urse of boarding or ding or deboarding the train itself amo lf amounts to an untoward incident an ent and the claima claimant is entitled to compensatio nsation. Negligence or contribut ributory negligence gence on the part of deceased/victim ictim cannot be a ground to decline th line the claim. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 &M) FAO-115-2018 (O&M [8]
Legal Reasoning
Counsel for the respondent on ent on the other hand submits that so f at so far as negligen gligence on part of the deceased is co d is concerned, the same is evident. dent. It has come o ome on record that he tried to deboard eboard train from off side and was thu as thus, himself res elf responsible for the death. [9] Having heard counsel for the or the parties and after carefully go going through rec gh records of the case, this Court ourt finds that even if the best ca est case pleaded by ed by the respondent-UOI is taken to ken to be on face value, it will still be till be a case of inju of injury suffered by victim while deb ile deboarding the train. The issue is n ue is no more res in es integra. Supreme Court in the the ‘Rina Devi’s case (supra) held a held as under:- [10] “16.6 We are unable to uphold t old the above view as the concept of ‘se of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require in re intention to inflict such injury and n nd not mere negligence of any particul ticular degree. Doing so would amou mount to invoking the principle of contr contributory negligence which cannot not be done in the case of liability base based on ‘no fault theory’. We may ay in this connection refer to judgm dgment of this Court in United Ind India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil unil Kumar, 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 680 ) 680 : 2017 (13) SCALE 652 laying d ng down that plea of negligence of t of the victim cannot be allowed in in claim based on ‘no fault theor heory’ under Section 163A of the Moto Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According dingly, we hold that death or injury ury in the course of boarding or d or de- boarding a train will be an ‘unt ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim tim to the compensation and will not not fall under the proviso to Sectio ection 124A merely on the plea of negli egligence of the victim as a contributin buting factor. ” Supreme Court in the case of ase of ‘Jameela and others vs. Unio . Union of India, 2 dia, 2010 AIR SC 3705’, while answ answering question No.2 as referred ferred to answer the er the same, analyzing the principles ciples of contributory negligence of th e of the passenger, nger, observing as under:- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “7. ……. It is now to b to be seen, that under section 124A t 4A the &M) FAO-115-2018 (O&M 8. 9. 4 liability to pay compensa ensation is regardless of any wrongf ongful act, neglect or defaul efault on the part of the railw ailway administration. But the p he proviso to the section says that t at the railway administration w on would have no liability to pay a y any compensation in case dea death of the passenger or injury to hi to him was caused due to any o ny of the reasons enumerated in clause lauses (a) to (e). Coming back to th to the case in hand, it is not the case ase of the Railway that the death death of M. Hafeez was a case of suici suicide or a result of self-inflicted icted injury. It is also not the case that that he died due to his own cri criminal act or he was in a state state of intoxication or he was in s insane, or he died due to any natur atural cause or disease. His fal s falling down from the train was, thu , thus, clearly accidental. The manner in w n which the accident is sought to to be reconstructed by the Rail Railway, the deceased was standing ing at the open door of the tra train compartment from where he fe he fell down, Page 6 of 14 i 4 is called by the railway itself self as negligence. Now neglige ligence of this kind which is not ve t very uncommon on Indian tr n trains is not the same thing as as a criminal act mentioned in ed in clause (c) to the proviso to sectio section 124A. A criminal act envi envisaged under clause (c) must have a ave an element of malicious inten intent or mens rea. Standing at the op e open doors of the compartme rtment of a running train may be be a negligent act, even a rash rash act but, without anything else, it se, it is certainly not a criminal inal act. Thus, the case of the railw ailway must fail even after assum ssuming everything in its favour.” [11] The issue being squarely cove y covered by the ratio of law laid dow id down by Suprem upreme Court, this Court finds tha ds that the findings recorded by th by the Tribunal on nal on Issue Nos.2 to 4 cannot be sus be sustained and are hereby ordered dered to be set aside aside. It is held that the deceased-V Vinod Kumar, who was a bona fid a fide passenger nger died in an untoward incident, ident, involving railways and is thu is thus, entitled for led for compensation as per the Sched Schedule appended the Railway Claim Claims RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Tribunal Ru nal Rules. 5 &M) FAO-115-2018 (O&M [12] Allowed. [13] The claimant shall be entitled ntitled for an amount of Rs.4,00,000 00,000/- along with with interest @ 9% per annum from m from date of accident till the date date of actual reali l realization or an amount of Rs.8,00,0 .8,00,000/- whichever is higher. [14] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands
Decision
disposed of ed off. .2025 21.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document