21.03.2025 Union of In n of India v. Kamlesh K lesh Kumari and others
Case Details
FAO-8003-2017 (O& (O&M) 1 [216] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA FAO-8003 Date of De 8003-2017 (O&M) of Decision : 21.03.2025 Union of In n of India …Appellant versus Kamlesh K lesh Kumari and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Vij, Advocate for the respondents. *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] This is an appeal directed agai d against order dated 19.09.2017 passe 7 passed by the Railw e Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigar ndigarh Bench, Chandigarh. [2] Union of India is in appeal ag
Legal Reasoning
peal aggrieved by the order vide whic e which claim app application filed by the claim claimants seeking compensation o tion of Rs.4,00,000 ,00,000/- on account of death of on of one Vijay Kumar in an untowar ntoward incident inv ent involving railways was allowed a wed and compensation to the extent o xtent of Rs.8,00,000 ,00,000/- was awarded. [3] The facts of the case are th are that on 02.11.2014, the decease eceased reached rai ed railway station Nangal Dam, he , he purchased one railway ticket fo cket for going to K g to Kharar and boarded the train. train. When the train reached Rop Ropar Railway St ay Station, he alighted from the train e train to fetch water and while he wa he was trying to bo g to board the train again, he got entan t entangled with some other train, whic , which RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.12 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-8003-2017 (O& (O&M) 2 was enterin entering the platform. He sustained g ined grievous injuries on the vital par tal parts of the body e body and died on the spot. [4] The respondent-railways conte s contested the claim by filing a writte written statement i ment in which it was averred that no at no such incident within the meanin eaning of the prov e provisions of Section 123(c) read w read with Section 124A of the Railwa Railway Act occurre ccurred. It was further alleged that th that the deceased had become entangle tangled with some some train due to his own criminall iminally negligent act and conduct fo duct for which no li h no liability can be fixed upon the rail the railways. [5] After hearing rival contention tentions, the Tribunal had framed th med the following i wing issues:- 1) Whether the claim appli pplication is maintainable or not? 2) Whether the deceased w train at the time of incid sed was a bonafide passenger of th ncident? of the 3) Whether the alleged inc of Section 123(c) read w Act? d incident is covered within the amb ad with Section 124-A of the Railwa ambit ailway 4) Whether the applicants ants are the sole dependants of th of the deceased? 5. Relief. [6] The claim application was allo as allowed by the Ld. Tribunal and th and the claimants w ants were entitled to a sum of Rs of Rs.8,00,000/- along with a simp simple interest of 6 est of 6% per annum. It was held that ld that there was no material on the fi the file to hold tha ld that the deceased had any reason t ason to entangle with the moving tra ng train intentionall tionally and to bring upon himself su self such fatal injuries. It is not a cas t a case where he tr e he tried committing suicide. It was h t was held that the death of the decease eceased comes with within the purview of an untoward toward incident within the meaning o ning of Section 124 on 124-A of the Railways Act. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.12 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-8003-2017 (O& (O&M) 3 [7] Counsel appearing for the U the Union of India contends that th that the Tribunal er nal erred in granting compensation an tion and holding that the deceased was d was a bonafide pa passenger and victim of an untow untoward incident. The Tribunal faile al failed to ignore t nore that there was overwhelming ev ing evidence on record in the form o form of GRP and D and DRM report which show that t that the deceased got struck with th ith the engine of th e of the other train while trying to cro to cross Railway Line No.2 to reach h each his train. The L . The Loco Pilot, Akhilesh Kumar, sta ar, stated on oath that he saw a perso person got struck truck with the engine while the train e train was entering Ropar Line No ne No.2 Railway St ay Station. [8] Counsel appearing for the r the respondents while upholding th ing the view taken taken by the railways contends that th that there is evidence on record to sho to show that the dec the deceased was a bonafide passenge ssenger. During the physical search o earch of the dead bo ead body of the deceased, one 2nd cla nd class ordinary railway ticket bearin bearing No.532875 3287584 dated 02.11.2014 was recov s recovered. There is no evidence o ence on record that d that the deceased had any intent or ent or reason to take his own life. Thu e. Thus, the Tribuna ribunal rightly allowed the claim of th of the claimants. [9] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon ly gone through the gh the records of the case. [10] It has come on record that a tic at a ticket was recovered from the bod he body of the dece e deceased. The evidence remained ained unrebutted. Once the claiman laimants have prove proved on record that there was a tic s a ticket recovered, the burden shifte shifted upon the ra the railways to prove otherwise. Noth Nothing was brought on record by th d by the railways. T ays. Thus, it is held that the deceased w eased was a bonafide passenger. [11] The issue qua untoward incid incident is no longer res integra. Th . The RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.12 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document same has be has been decided by the Supreme Cou f India e Court in the case of ‘Union of India FAO-8003-2017 (O& (O&M) 4 vs. Rina D ina Devi’ 2019 (3) SCC 572. Decea Deceased died of a fall from a movin moving train. There . There is no allegation or evidence th ence that injuries were self inflicted. I icted. In view of this of this issue qua untoward incident als ent also needs to be answered in favou n favour of the claim aimants. [12] In light of above, finding no ing no merit, the appeal preferred erred is hereby dism y dismissed and the order passed by th d by the Tribunal is upheld. [13] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands
Decision
disposed of sed off. .2025 21.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.12 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document