Vaibhav S/O. Rameshrao Koparkar vs Union Of India, Mumbai, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 637 Bom

        J-fa1047.16.odt                                                                                                    1/7


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                     FIRST APPEAL No.1047 OF 2016


        Vaibhav s/o. Rameshrao Koparkar,
        Aged about 22 years,
        Occupation : Nil,
        R/o. Palasgaon (Bai),
        Post Sindhi Rly., 
        Tah. Seloo, District Nagpur.                                                :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        Union of India,
        through the General Manager,
        Central Railway, CST, Mumbai.                                                :      RESPONDENT


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the Appellant.
        Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for the Respondent
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

th DATE : 9 MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with consent of counsel

for the parties.

3. The appellant while travelling from Sindhi Railway to

Wardha by Train No.51282 Up met with an accident, as a result of which

J-fa1047.16.odt 2/7

his both legs were required to be amputed. On that basis he filed an

application for grant of compensation under the provisions of Section 16

of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, "the said Act").

4. The application was opposed by the respondent on the

ground that the appellant himself was responsible for the accident. By

judgment dated 11th February, 2016, the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Nagpur rejected the claim for compensation. Being aggrieved the

present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the said Act.

5. Shri P.R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that from the material placed on record it was clear that the

appellant was a bona fide passenger of the Railways and that he had

sustained injuries, as a result of an untoward incident. According to him,

there was no material on record for the Claims Tribunal to come to the

conclusion that on account of rash and criminal negligence of the

appellant he had sustained injuries. The conclusion arrived at by the

Tribunal that the appellant was not involved in an untoward incident

was without any evidence on record. Relying upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran

Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in 2008 (5) ALL MR 917, the

judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas vs. Union of

India reported in 2008 ACJ 1921 and the judgment of the Hon'ble

Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India represented

J-fa1047.16.odt 3/7

by General Manager, South Central Railway vs. V.M. Ranganadhan

reported in 2007 ACJ 901, it was submitted that the claim for

compensation was liable to be allowed.

6. Shri N.P. Lambat, learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the accident

occurred on account of own negligence of the appellant. The appellant

tried to board train after it had started its journey. It was in fact a self

inflicted injury and, therefore, it could not be said that the accident

occurred on account of any 'untoward' incident. In that regard he placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Santosh and

others vs. Union of India decided in FAO 72/2011, decided on 5th

September, 2011 as well as the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in

the case of Union of India vs. Lakshmi and others reported in 2014

ACJ 2505.

7. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have

perused the records of this case and I have given due consideration to

their respective submissions. The following point arises for

consideration :

Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation ?

8. In support of the claim for compensation, the appellant

examined himself and stated that on 19.12.2011 he along with his friend

J-fa1047.16.odt 4/7

had booked a combined ticket for travelling from Sindhi Railway to

Wardha. While boarding the train which had just started he had a fall,

resulting in injuries. He produced on record the Railway ticket which

was certified by the Police authorities. He was, therefore a bona fide

passenger of the Railways. In the decision in Lakshmi and others (supra),

the deceased was not found holding a valid railway ticket. Said decision

is, therefore, distinguishable.

9. In the statutory investigation conducted by the respondent it

was found that the appellant sustained injuries while trying to board the

train. In his cross-examination it was suggested to the appellant that

when the train arrived at the platform No.2 he was standing at platform

No.1. He heard the whistle by the loco pilot. While trying to catch the

train the appellant had a fall. It is on the basis of this cross-examination

that it was sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the respondent

that after the train started its journey the appellant was on platform No.1

and that he tried to catch the train which was leaving from platform

No.2. If the suggestions given to the witness are perused what is

admitted by the appellant is that he was on platform No.1 when the train

arrived on platform No.2. This admission cannot straightway lead to the

conclusion that even while the train left the platform the appellant was

still on platform No.1. There is no suggestion given that the appellant

was still on platform No.1 even when the train started its onward

J-fa1047.16.odt 5/7

journey. It is to be noted that the train in question was a passenger train

and even according to the statement of the Guard of the train it had

halted for almost two minutes at the platform. There is no other

evidence brought on record by the respondent to justify the submission

that even when the train started its journey the appellant was still on

platform No.1.

10. In Prabhakaran (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that even if a person trying to board the train has a fall, it would be

considered as an accidental fall. It is further held that a liberal

interpretation ought to be given to the aforesaid expression. The Claims

Tribunal without considering these aspects of the matter proceeded to

record a finding that the injuries was caused due to the own deliberate,

rash and negligent act of the appellant. There is no material on record to

come to the conclusion that the injuries on the appellant were self

inflicted. In the decision in the case of Smt. Santosh and others (supra)

relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, there was

evidence on record in the form of an eye witness who had noticed that

before the deceased therein had tried to board the train, 8 to 9 coaches

of the train had already passed. As noted above, there is no such

evidence on record in the present proceedings. Hence, it is held that the

appellant suffered injuries on account of untoward incident as

contemplated by the provisions of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act,

J-fa1047.16.odt 6/7

1989.

11. Once it is found that the appellant had sustained injuries as a

result of such untoward incident, he would be entitled for grant of

statutory compensation. The point as framed is answered in the

affirmative. However, in the present facts the question would arise with

regard to the quantum of compensation. To prove the injuries sustained

by him, the appellant placed on record disability certificate dated

11.9.2012 on record as AW-1/7. The quantum of compensation that is

payable for injuries has been stated in the Schedule to the Railway

Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990. While

according to the appellant, the injuries sustained by the appellant were

entitled to be compensated either under Item 11 or 12 of Part III,

according to the respondent, the injuries sustained would be either under

Item 13 or 14 of the said Part III. The disability certificate however does

not throw much light when the same is examined in the light of the

injuries that are described in aforesaid Items.

12. Considering these aspects of the matter, the following course

could be followed which would enable this Court to award appropriate

compensation to the appellant.

13. The appellant shall appear before the Handicapped Board,

General Hospital, Wardha within a period of one month from today.

Thereafter, he shall be examined by the said Handicapped Board which

J-fa1047.16.odt 7/7

shall certify the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant after

examining Item Nos.11 to 14 of Part III to the Schedule to the Railway

Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The

appellant shall accordingly produce such certificate before this Court on

the basis of which further orders in the matter of grant of compensation

could be passed.

14. For said purpose, the appeal be fixed for further

consideration on 17th April, 2017.

JUDGE

okMksns