Allahabad High Court
Union Of India Through General ... vs Smt Ram Dulari on 18 May, 2011
Bench: Devi Prasad Singh, S.C. Chaurasia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 90 of 2009
Petitioner :- Union Of India Through General Manager Northern Railway
Respondent :- Smt Ram Dulari
Petitioner Counsel :- Vinay Shanker
Respondent Counsel :- Jaspreet Singh
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned award dated 6.11.2008 passed in Claim Case No. O.A. 0600733 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow.
Deceased Shambhu and claimant Ram Dulari alongwith their family have boarded a train Duplicate Punjab Mail on 2.7.2002 from Railway Station-Sandila to Ambala and they were having a ticket during the course of journey. On 3.7.2002 when the train reached Dausni Railway Station near Police Station-Laxer because of sudden jerk Shambhu fell down from the train and succumbed to the injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal and the tribunal awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
While assailing the impugned award, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the accident had occurred because of sudden fall of the deceased and Railway Administration is protected under exception clause of section 124 of the Railway Act, 1989.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant refuted the submission advanced by the appellant's counsel and submitted that the deceased was having ticket owing to long journey alongwith family members and he fell down because of sudden jerk from the open portion of the compartment. It has also been submitted by the respondent's counsel that no evidence was led by the appellant before the tribunal to claim benefit of exception clause provided under Section 124 of the Railway Act.
From the finding recorded by the tribunal, it is evident that the appellant had not led any evidence to establish his case that the accident falls within the exception clause of Section 124-A of the Act. It appears that deceased alongwith family members boarded a train at Sandila and fell down near Laxar because of sudden jerk and on account of the fact that the door of the compartment was open.
Since the appellant had not led any evidence to substantiate the defence under the exception clause, the arguments advanced by the appellants fails. So far as the possession of ticket is concerned, indisputably the deceased fell down from the train because of sudden jerk and the ticket may have lost during the course of accident. However, it appears that the deceased boarded a train at Sandila on 2.7.2002 and the accident occurred on 3.7.2002. In case, he would not have any ticket, he would have been trapped by the ticker collector.
In a case reported in LCD 2009 278 Akhtari Begum vs. Union of India, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, relying upon various judgments of the Supreme Court, it has been held that in the event of accident or untoward incident, the presumption shall always be in favour of the passenger with regard to bonafide unless rebutted by the material and cogent evidence. Indisputably, no evidence was led by the appellant to substantiate the defence taken before the tribunal.
In view of above, the impugned award passed by the tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Let the entire amount be deposited before the tribunal within two months from today, which shall be released to the claimant in next two months.
Order Date :- 18.5.2011
Rizvi
