On 10th October 2022, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in a single judge bench comprising of Justice Smt. M.S. Jawalkar observed that though claimant is not dependant on deceased, she is entitled for compensation being legal representative of the deceased and even if there is no ticket found on the person of deceased that cannot be the ground for denial of compensation. (Smt. Mina w/o Punamchand Shahare V. Union Of India, Through The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur C.G.)
Facts of the Case:
The original applicant had filed the Claim Application on account of death of her father namely Shri Suraj Ganvir in an untoward incident. On 14.04.2011 deceased was travelling from Gondia to Wadsa by passenger train by purchasing valid ticket for Gondia to Wadsa. As there was heavy rush of the passengers in the train and the deceased was standing near the door of the coach, when the train reached in between Hirdamali to Pindkepar, the deceased fell down from running train and died on the spot. The claim application was resisted by the respondent by stating that it is not untoward incident and the deceased was not bonafide passenger of the train. The railway claim tribunal observed that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was found and the incident was not covered within the term “untoward incident”, as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Hence the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that “the learned Tribunal erred in not considering that railway ticket has been lost in an untoward incident and specifically contended that the burden lies on railway to prove that deceased was ticketless passenger.” The counsel relied upon the cases, Smt. Manjiri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayan Kumar and others, and Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent submitted that “the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger, nor fell down from the train in question, the alleged incident took place due to sole negligent, careless and wrong act on the part of the deceased, the alleged incident is not covered under Section 123 & 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 and the present appellant-claimant is not the dependant on the deceased as she is married daughter therefore the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant.”
Observations and Order of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that “In view of the judgment Smt. Manjiere Bera though claimant is not dependant on deceased, she is entitled for compensation being legal representative of the deceased. She cannot be denied compensation on the ground that she is not dependant on the deceased. In section 123 (b)(i) of the railways act, there is no qualification either married or unmarried daughter. As such claimant is entitled for compensation. This Court while deciding First Appeal No.382/2018 (supra) relied on judgment passed in S. Vijayalaxmi by the Madras High Court wherein it is held that when a person died in an accident by falling down from train, it is not possible for the legal heirs to produce the ticket or valid authority to travel in the train.” The court while referring to the cases, Rina Devi and Prabhakaran said that “there cannot be said to be negligence on the part of deceased when it is strict liability of railway and it can be inferred that deceased was a bonafide passenger and he fell down from running train was an untoward incident. The claimant is legally entitled to compensation.”
Hence, the present appeal was allowed and the respondent/ Union Of India was directed to pay to the appellant the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- within three months.
Case: Smt. Mina w/o Punamchand Shahare V. Union Of India, Through The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur C.G.
Citation: First Appeal No. 68 Of 2021
Bench: Justice Smt. M.S. Jawalkar
Date: 10th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
