Sikandara Road, Bandikui Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. (Rajasthan) v. Union of India through the General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur

: Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shruti Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 15/05/2025 Order

1. Present miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment dated 23.10.2023 passed by Member(Technical),RCT/Jaipur in Claim Case No. OA-II-106/2011, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 02.12.2010 the deceased Smt. Kaushalya Devi and her husband Shri Prabhudayal(appellant No.1 herein) were travelling from Bandikui to Delhi by Aashram Express and when the said train reached Rewari Railway Station at about 7:30 A.M. the deceased entering into the toilet, suddenly fell down due to water [2025:RJ-JP:20641] (2 of 5) [CMA-2062/2014] spread over there and as a result, she suffered grievous head injuries, later on, she passed away on 03.12.2010.

3. It was also pleaded that the deceased was shifted from Railways Hospital to SSL Hospital, Rewari and later on, she was referred to Safdarganj Hospital, Delhi for further treatment.

4. That after service of notices upon the respondent, the respondent filed its reply and denied the allegations made in the claim petition and pleaded that no post mortem report was produced which shows that the incident of death was occurred due to alleged injury. The respondent further submitted that the present case is covered under the exceptions proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Respondent has further stated that claimants had not produced any document which shows that the death of deceased occurred due to alleged injury. Therefore, the claim petition be dismissed against the answering respondents.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and material available on record, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal framed following issues:- "1. Whether the deceased was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?

2. Whether the deceased became a victim of an untoward incident due to fall from the running train sustained injuries and died as a result thereof as alleged in the claim application and the said incident is covered under the definition of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? [2025:RJ-JP:20641] (3 of 5) [CMA-2062/2014]

3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application?

4. Relief?"

6. Thereafter, in order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimants examined AW-1-Prabhudayal and produced documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

7. On the contrary, the respondent-Railway Administration has examined Damodar Sagar Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Rewari.

8. After hearing arguments of the respective parties, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellants failed to establish the death of deceased-Smt. Kaushalya Devi was occurred due to grievous head injuries suffered by her due to untoward incident or fall in the train.

9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse and suffers from gross-misleading of documents. He further submits that from the documents available on record, it is well proved that the accident occurred due to negligency of the Railways, therefore, the claim petition deserves to be allowed.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due appreciation of facts and law.

11. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:20641] (4 of 5) [CMA-2062/2014]

12. From the documents available on record specially Ex.P/2- Original Out-Patient Health Care Card of District Hospital, Rewari, wherein under the head of 'case history', it is reported that the deceased-Kaushalya Devi suddenly lost the consciousness in the toilet of the train and at that point of time blood pressure of deceased was 160/80. It is revealed that the appellants have not produced any post-mortem report which is vital piece of evidence because in accidental death cases normally, the post mortem is conducted to show the cause of death and in case, death occurs in normal course as a result of natural death, no post mortem was conducted.

13. From the bare perusal of Ex.P/4-Certificate issued by the Medical Office, SSL Government Hospital, Rewari, it is again reflected that the deceased was brought in the hospital on

2.12.2010 by ambulance with a history of sudden loss of consciousness in toilet of the train. The said document is also clearly reflects that it is not a case where the deceased-Kaushalya Devi, while entering the toilet, accidentally fell down due to water spread there.

14. On the contrary, it reflects that due to hyper tension, the deceased become unconscious and fell in the toilet. After careful analysis of all facts, this Court is of the view that the present case clearly falls under the exception Clause (e) of the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railway Claims Act which reads as under:- "any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident" [2025:RJ-JP:20641] (5 of 5) [CMA-2062/2014]

15. In totality of circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion, that the appellants have failed to establish the death of deceased-Kaushalya Devi was a result of grievous injury suffered by her due to an untoward accident, rather the cause of death appears to be high blood pressure resulting in sudden unconsciousness, therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.

16. In view of above, the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant lacks merits.

17. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

18. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /54 (MANEESH SHARMA),J

: Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shruti Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 15/05/2025 Order

1. Present miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment dated 23.10.2023 passed by Member(Technical),RCT/Jaipur in Claim Case No. OA-II-106/2011, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 02.12.2010 the deceased Smt. Kaushalya Devi and her husband Shri Prabhudayal(appellant No.1 herein) were travelling from Bandikui to Delhi by Aashram Express and when the said train reached Rewari Railway Station at about 7:30 A.M. the deceased entering into the toilet, suddenly fell down due to water [2025:RJ-JP:20641] (2 of 5) [CMA-2062/2014] spread over there and as a result, she suffered grievous head injuries, later on, she passed away on 03.12.2010.

3. It was also pleaded that the deceased was shifted from Railways Hospital to SSL Hospital, Rewari and later on, she was referred to Safdarganj Hospital, Delhi for further treatment.

4. That after service of notices upon the respondent, the respondent filed its reply and denied the allegations made in the claim petition and pleaded that no post mortem report was produced which shows that the incident of death was occurred due to alleged injury. The respondent further submitted that the present case is covered under the exceptions proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Respondent has further stated that claimants had not produced any document which shows that the death of deceased occurred due to alleged injury. Therefore, the claim petition be dismissed against the answering respondents.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and material available on record, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal framed following issues:- "1. Whether the deceased was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?

2. Whether the deceased became a victim of an untoward incident due to fall from the running train sustained injuries and died as a result thereof as alleged in the claim application and the said incident is covered under the definition of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? [2025:RJ-JP:20641] (3 of 5) [CMA-2062/2014]

3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application?

4. Relief?"

6. Thereafter, in order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimants examined AW-1-Prabhudayal and produced documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

7. On the contrary, the respondent-Railway Administration has examined Damodar Sagar Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Rewari.

8. After hearing arguments of the respective parties, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellants failed to establish the death of deceased-Smt. Kaushalya Devi was occurred due to grievous head injuries suffered by her due to untoward incident or fall in the train.

9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse and suffers from gross-misleading of documents. He further submits that from the documents available on record, it is well proved that the accident occurred due to negligency of the Railways, therefore, the claim petition deserves to be allowed.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due appreciation of facts and law.

11. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:20641] (4 of 5) [CMA-2062/2014]

12. From the documents available on record specially Ex.P/2- Original Out-Patient Health Care Card of District Hospital, Rewari, wherein under the head of 'case history', it is reported that the deceased-Kaushalya Devi suddenly lost the consciousness in the toilet of the train and at that point of time blood pressure of deceased was 160/80. It is revealed that the appellants have not produced any post-mortem report which is vital piece of evidence because in accidental death cases normally, the post mortem is conducted to show the cause of death and in case, death occurs in normal course as a result of natural death, no post mortem was conducted.

13. From the bare perusal of Ex.P/4-Certificate issued by the Medical Office, SSL Government Hospital, Rewari, it is again reflected that the deceased was brought in the hospital on

2.12.2010 by ambulance with a history of sudden loss of consciousness in toilet of the train. The said document is also clearly reflects that it is not a case where the deceased-Kaushalya Devi, while entering the toilet, accidentally fell down due to water spread there.

14. On the contrary, it reflects that due to hyper tension, the deceased become unconscious and fell in the toilet. After careful analysis of all facts, this Court is of the view that the present case clearly falls under the exception Clause (e) of the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railway Claims Act which reads as under:- "any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident" [2025:RJ-JP:20641] (5 of 5) [CMA-2062/2014]

15. In totality of circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion, that the appellants have failed to establish the death of deceased-Kaushalya Devi was a result of grievous injury suffered by her due to an untoward accident, rather the cause of death appears to be high blood pressure resulting in sudden unconsciousness, therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.

16. In view of above, the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant lacks merits.

17. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

18. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /54 (MANEESH SHARMA),J