Delhi High Court
Manjit Kaur And Others vs Union Of India Through General ... on 14 July, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.61/2011
% July 14, 2011
MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS
Through: Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is to the impugned order dated
15.11.2010, which has dismissed the claim petition of the
appellants/applicants who are the dependants of the deceased Nirmal Singh.
2. The facts of the case are that on 28.4.2010, Sh. Nirmal Singh was
travelling from Ludhiana to Delhi in Sachkhand Express. When the train
arrived at Subzi Mandi Railway Station, New Delhi there was a sudden jerk
FAO 61/2011. Page 1 of 5
resulting in him falling down and getting injured. Sh. Nirmal Singh was
removed to Hindu Rao Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on
8.5.2010.
3. The only defence of the respondent in the trial court was that the
deceased died on account of his own negligence and therefore there was no
'untoward incident' within the meaning of the expression in Section 124-A of
the Railways Act, 1989.
4. So far as the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is not
disputed because a ticket of travel bearing no.23692396 dated 28.4. 2010
for the journey from Ludhiana to New Delhi was recovered from the
deceased and which is cleared from the Jamatalashi Report, Ex.AW1/6. The
valid journey ticket with the deceased at the time of the incident shows he
was a bonafide passenger and which is also the finding of the Railway Claims
Tribunal. The contention of the respondent was however that the train had
an unscheduled halt and the deceased died on account of his own
negligence in getting down when the train was in motion.
5. In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of Jameela and
others vs. Union of India 2010 ACJ 2453 has observed as under :-
5. We are of the considered view that the High Court
gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not
entitled to any compensation under section 124-A of the
Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from
the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of
FAO 61/2011. Page 2 of 5
the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at
the open door of the train compartment in a negligent
manner from where he fell down is entirely based on
speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness of the fall
of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is
absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways
that the accident took place in the manner suggested by
it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the
deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own
negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation
payable under section 124-A of the Act.
7. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell
down from the train and died while travelling on it on a
valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a 'passenger' for
the purpose of section 124-A as clarified by the
Explanation. It is now to be seen that under section 124-A
the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any
wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway
administration. But the proviso to the section says that
the railway administration would have no liability to pay
any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury
to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated
in clauses (a) to (e).
9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be
reconstructed by the Railways, the deceased was standing
at the open door of the train compartment from where he
fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence.
Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon
of Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act
mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A
criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an
element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the
open doors of the compartment of a running train may be
a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else,
it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the
Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its
favour." (Emphasis added)
6. A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. Whereas the case of
the appellants was that the deceased died on account of fall from a sudden
jerk from a train, the case of the respondent was that he died while alighting
FAO 61/2011. Page 3 of 5
from the train. In my opinion, once the deceased was a bonafide passenger
and there was an unscheduled halt at Subzi Mandi Railway Station, on the
balance of probabilities a conclusion which needs to be drawn is that the
deceased cannot be said to have died on account of a suicide or self-inflicted
injury, as is envisaged in the expression as found in Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989. The provision of Section 124A of the Railways Act, has
been dwelt upon by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Jameela
(supra) and it was opined that once a passenger dies falling from a train,
merely because the deceased was said to be standing on the open door of
the train compartment cannot be said to be negligence falling within Section
124 A of the Railways Act. In fact, the Supreme Court in paras 5 and 9 of the
judgment, quoted above, has said that rash act is not a negligent act and
cannot be said to be a criminal act falling under Section 124-A of the
Railways Act. In my opinion, the facts of the present case are covered within
the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jameela (supra).
7. The appeal is therefore accepted. The impugned order dated
15.11.2010 is set aside. The claim petition of the applicants/appellants will
stand allowed for a sum of Rs.4 lacs and which is the fixed statutory
compensation in case of death of a passenger. The applicants/appellants will
also be entitled to interest at 9% per annum simple from the date of filing of
the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal till payment by the
FAO 61/2011. Page 4 of 5
respondent to the applicants/appellants. The compensation amount would
be equally distributed between all the three applicants/appellants.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Trial court record be sent
back.
JULY 14, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
