Bombay High Court
Khawja Khan S/O Taher Khan, Minors ... vs Union Of India, Through The Gneral ... on 21 September, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
fa.892.16.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.943 OF 2015
01] Khawja Khan s/o Taher Khan,
Aged about 17 years, Private Work.
02] Sohel Khan s/o Taher Khan,
Aged about 14 years, Occ. Private Work.
Both r/o Junaganj, Dhangar Tekdi,
Nanded, Tah. and District Nanded.
The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are minors
i.e. through their Natural Guardian
Ahsan Ahmed Khan s/o Manzoor Ahmad,
aged 60 years, Occ. Private Work,
R/o Junaganj, Dhangar Tekdi, Nanded,
Tah. and District Nanded. .... Appellants
-- Versus -
Union of India, through the General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad (A.P.). .... Respondent
with
FIRST APPEAL NO.892 OF 2016
01] Khawja Khan s/o Taher Khan,
Aged about 17 years, Private Work.
02] Sohel Khan s/o Taher Khan,
Aged about 14 years, Occ. Private Work.
Both r/o Junaganj, Dhangar Tekdi,
Nanded, Tah. and District Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:12 :::
fa.892.16.jud 2
The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are minors
i.e. through their Natural Guardian
Ahsan Ahmed Khan s/o Manzoor Ahmad,
aged 60 years, Occ. Private Work,
R/o Junaganj, Dhangar Tekdi, Nanded,
Tah. and District Nanded. .... Appellants
-- Versus -
Union of India, through the General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad (A.P.). .... Respondent
Shri S.K. Sable, Advocate for the Appellants.
Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Both these appeals, though arising out of two
judgments and awards, relate to the same accident and,
therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
02] First Appeal No.943/2015 takes an exception to the
judgment and award dated 31/10/2013 passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim
Application No. OA(Ilu)/NGP/2011/0174, thereby dismissing an
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:12 :::
fa.892.16.jud 3
application moved by younger brothers of Imran Khan, who died
in a vehicular accident.
03] In First Appeal No.892/2016, challenge is to the
judgment and award dated 31/10/2013 passed by the Tribunal in
Claim Application No.OA(Ilu)/NGP/2011/0173 thereby dismissing
an application moved by sons of deceased Taher Khan, who met
with his death in the same accident.
04] The facts giving rise to the appeals may be stated in
nutshell as under :
i. On 20/10/2010, Imran Khan and his father Taher Khan
were going from Nanded to Aurangabad for work. It
was the case of appellants that they purchased
tickets and due to heavy rush in the compartment,
were standing near the door of train. The submission
is that due to sudden jerk, both fell down at
Kumbhephal Shivar and died. Appellants claimed
compensation on account of death of father and elder
brother.
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:12 :::
fa.892.16.jud 4
ii. Respondent resisted the claim by filing written
statement. It was submitted that no untoward
incident had taken place. It might be accidental fall
at the most. According to respondent, deceased were
not the passengers of any vehicle and incident is not
covered under Section 123 and 124-A of the Railways
Act. Respondent submitted that during investigation,
it was revealed that death of Taher Khan and Imran
Khan occurred due to dash and run over while
crossing railway track.
iii. On the basis of rival contentions, Tribunal framed
issues. Appellants examined AW-1 Ahsan Ahmed Khan
in both the claim petitions in support of their claims.
Respondent examined two witnesses to support it's
defence. In addition to oral evidence, parties placed
reliance on the documents including police papers.
Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence,
Tribunal came to the conclusion that applicants could
not prove untoward incident defined in Section 123(c)
(2) of the Railways Act and in consequence thereof
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:12 :::
fa.892.16.jud 5
dismissed both the original applications. These
orders are the subject matter of challenge in the
present appeals.
05] Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident.
Applicants have not stated in the applications by which train
deceased were travelling. Railway tickets have not been placed
on record. There is no whisper in the evidence of witnesses
examined by applicants that deceased were the passengers
travelling in a particular train. It appears from the material
brought on record that even railway administration was not
informed about the incident.
06] Respondent-railways examined two witnesses. During
inquiry conducted by railways, it was revealed that deceased
died due to dash and run over by some train while crossing the
railway track. This itself is not enough to cover the incident
under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. From the police-
papers also, it cannot be made out that deceased had fallen
from some train and they were passengers travelling in a train.
In the absence of evidence, even to slightly suggest that
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:12 :::
fa.892.16.jud 6
deceased were the bona fide passengers travelling in a train and
met with an untoward accident, the Tribunal held that applicants
were not entitled to claim compensation from the railway
administration.
07] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the
parties, this Court has minutely scrutinized the oral and
documentary evidence. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal
are in consonance with the evidence adduced by the parties. As
such no fault can be found with these appeals. Appeals deserve
to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
I. First Appeal Nos.943/2015 and 892/2016 stand
dismissed.
II. No costs.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J)
