High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 1 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1588 of 2007 Appellant :- Union of India Respondent :- Master Mayank Tyagi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lalji Sinha U.O.I.C.S.C,Manan Kumar Choubey,Manoj Kumar,Ritu Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application (1) Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant Union of India and perused the material brought on record. (2) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- applicant Union of India against Master Mayank Tyagi and Kumari Priya Tyagi. Both were minors at the relevant point of time when the concerned Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimant-respondents. (3) At the time of presentation of this appeal, stamp reporter has appended its report that the instant appeal is beyond time by 17 days. (4) Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The instant appeal is treated to be filed within time. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed. (5) The office is directed to allot the regular number to this appeal. Order Date :- 3.4.2023 Vikram Court No. - 1
Legal Reasoning
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1588 of 2007 Appellant :- Union of India Respondent :- Master Mayank Tyagi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lalji Sinha U.O.I.C.S.C,Manan Kumar Choubey,Manoj Kumar,Ritu Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Legal Reasoning
(1) Heard Ms. Ritu, learned counsel for the Union of India in support of this Appeal and perused the material brought on record. (2) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Union of India against the judgement and award dated 26.06.2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad in Application No.OA/II/66/2004 SW, whereby overall compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- has been given to the respondents. Since Both the respondents- Master Mayank Tyagi and Kumari Priya Tyagi were minors at the time of incident in question, therefore, the amount payable to them i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- each shall be preserved by investing it in the Fixed Deposit Scheme of a Nationalized Bank, which will mature for payment on the holder's attaining majority or for five years, whichever is later. (3) The story, as reflected from perusal of the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned award reveals that respondent's father Manish Kumary Tyagi was 'Fireman' in the railway department under DRM/Northern Railway/Moradabad. While he was on duty, unfortunately he fell down from the running train at Chandok Railway Station and during treatment, respondent's father (Manish Kumar Tyagi) succumbed to his injuries on 12.09.2001 in the Hospital. (4) The deceased- Manish Kumar Tyagi s/o Mahadev Prasad Tyagi is stated to have sustained injuries after falling down from a running train at Chandok Railway Station on 23.11.1992 that resulted to his death on 12.09.2001. Manish Kumar Tyagi (deceased) was working as Fireman in the railway department under DRM/Northern Railway Mordabad on 23.11.1992. He was on duty at that point of time when he fell down from a running train, suffered injuries and died in hospital during treatment leaving behind the claimant- respondents. If the father of the claimant- respondents was absent from duty on the date of the accident then to say that the claimant- respondents are entitled to any compensation on account of death of their father, is wholly unsustainable, and any claim sought would be in derogation of the mandate contained under Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act 1989. The Railways Act,1989 is thus, entitles the claimant- respondents to compensation Section 124 A of the Act. It so happened that upon presentation of the application being registered Application No.OA/II/66/2004/HW Master Mayank Tyagi and another through Mr. Mahadev Prasad Tyagi Vs. Union of India before the Railway Claims Tribunal Ghaziabad, Bench Ghaziabad, the matter was contested and objected by the Union of India. The contention raised before this Court were also brought in black and white before the aforesaid Tribunal at Ghaziabad. However, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- (4-i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train at the time of accident? If not, to what effect? (4-ii) Whether the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the untoward incident? If so, to what effect? (4-iii) To what amount of compensation , if any, the applicant is entitled for? (4-iv) Relief? (5) The evidence led by both the sides was also specifically mentioned and described in paragraph no.4 of the impugned judgment and award dated 26.06.2007, therefore, the same need not be reiterated at the point of time. The Tribunal after considering the claim of both the parties and hearing them at length, recorded specific findings on all the aforesaid issues and awarded Rs.4,00,000/- with break up of Rs. 2,00,000/- to each of the claimant-respondents and the Union of India was directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the claimant-respondents within a period of three months with running interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order dated 26.06.2007 passed by it. (6) Consequently, this appeal. (7) Learned counsel for the appellant- Union of India claimed that insofar as the parameter requires for awarding compensation to the claimants under the relevant provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is concerned, the consideration ought to have been made in accordance with law and could not be made in terms of the mandate contained in the various provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and Railways Act, 1989. (8) Insofar as the contention raised before this Court regarding objections to the maintainability of the claim petition before the concerned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench is concerned, this Court keeps in mind various aspects and evidence on record, which have been placed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad. (9) The basic and preliminary objection raised by the appellant - Union of India pertains to the fact that the deceased was working as 'Fireman' in the railway department but he was not on duty at that relevant point of time. He added that the claimant- respondents did not produce the duty pass said to have been issued to the deceased. He also added that the deceased was neither passenger nor was he on duty at the time of the accident. In fact the deceased was on leave on the said date of the accident. There was no evidence on record as to how the deceased fell down from the train but in fact he died on account of his own act, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. (10) The record produced before the Railway Claims Tribunal is suggestive and indicative of fact that in fact, as per "To LF LRJ", the deceased was directed to Loco Foreman Laksar Junction, he was sent on duty from Haridwar. However, that is different aspect whether he was directed to do relief work from Laksar Junction to the site of accident and that being the redundant question should not be gone into while considering the merits of the claim petition. (11) Once the things are indicative and suggestive of some direction by the employer in the nomenclature of taking journey from one place to another place, then the authorization would be construed to the ambit that the deceased was authorized to travel, as such the contentions so raised, cannot be accepted. The Union of India could not produce any substantial worthy papers save the injury report of the deceased, which goes to show that papers were filed two months after it was prepared. (12) These findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are supported by evidence and material on record. The evidence recorded in regard thereto points out that direction was issued to the deceased for reporting to Loco Foreman at Laksar Junction which establishes fact that the deceased travelled from Haridwar/Laksar to Chandok site of accident with due authorization. (13) In view of above, it is observed that the finding recorded in respect of issue no.1 pertaining to the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train at the time of accident, stands decided in favour of the claimant- respondents and that has been rightly done by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, no interference is required in regard thereto. (14) Now, insofar as preliminary issue no. 2 is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal concerned is repleted with the fact that the papers of treatment and death certificate of the deceased indicates that employee/deceased met with accident on 23.11.1992 and ultimately died during the course of treatment on 12.09.2001 at Main Hospital, BHEL Ranikot, Haridwar. In this regard, papers relied upon and proved before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad can be seen as Exhibit- A3, A4, A5 and A6. Since the deceased remained in coma from the date of accident till death, therefore, there is no point in taking the things otherwise than the one stated and asserted by the claimant-respondents in their claim petition as such. Therefore, the findings recorded in respect of issue no. 2 is also sustained. (15) Now, insofar as the other issues i.e. 3 and 4 are concerned, the same are related to compensation being awarded to the claimant- respondents. The findings recorded in respect thereof is based upon fact that the claimant- respondents being minor son and daughter of the deceased were found to be aged 14 years and 13 years at that point of time and no one was there to look after them as the wife of the deceased Sri Manish Kumar Tyagi had predeceased him. In this context, no worthy evidence was brought to the notice of this Court by the Union of India so as to infer otherwise than the aspect of the case which speaks on its face and that runs in favour of the claimants-respondents. Therefore, it can be concluded that the claimant-respondents in this case are rightful to claim compensation as dependents by virtue of application of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989. (16) While considering the magnitude of the compensation, the above named dependents were considered as per Part I of the schedule of Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules 1999 as amended in 1997 and proper calculation was done by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench Ghaziabad and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in all with distribution of the same among the two claimant-respondents in equal proportion of Rs.2,00,000/- each, is found to be just and fair and the same needs no interference by this Court.
Decision
(17) In view of the above discussion, it is obvious that this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. (18) However, it is directed that the entire amount of compensation, if not already paid, shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before it and the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% as was directed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench Ghaziabad, which amount shall be received in equal proportion by the claimants/respondents. (19) Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.4.2023 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad