Delhi High Court
Sunita vs Union Of India on 1 May, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 402/2012
% 1st May, 2014
SUNITA ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated
31.5.2012, which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
claimant/appellant. By the claim petition statutory compensation was sought
on account of the death of appellant's husband Ram Prakash. Ram Prakash
was shot at the Sadar Bazar Railway Station by some assailants in order to
snatch the bag he was carrying. The deceased Ram Prakash was travelling
on a valid MST bearing no. O-0412823 by Ferozpur Janta Express Ex.Jind
and he had got down at the Sadar Bazar Railway Station where the untoward
FAO 402/2012 Page 1 of 5
incident as per Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989
occurred.
2. The respondent though had filed a written statement to contest the
claim of the appellant/claimant, the record of the Tribunal however shows
that no evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent in support of its
case. Appellant/claimant led evidence and proved on record the monthly
season ticket which has only wrongly been marked by the Tribunal but it
stands proved as per the evidence filed by the appellant. The FIR pertaining
to the incident has been filed and proved on record as Ex.AW1/4.
3. The only ground on which the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the
claim petition is because as per the interpretation of Section 123 (c) (1) of
the Railways Act, 1989 by the Tribunal, this provision does not come into
application unless there occurs death of several persons i.e this provision
does not come into play if there is death of only one person in the robbery
incident.
4. In order to appreciate the falsity of the interpretation of provision of
Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 by the Tribunal, the said provision
is reproduced below:-
" S.123(c). "untoward incident" means:
FAO 402/2012 Page 2 of 5
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning
of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987)
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of
robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson,
By any person in or any train carrying passengers, or in a
waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or any
platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway
station; or
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers."
5. Even a cursory reading of this provision shows that nowhere in this
provision it is provided that an untoward incident happens as a result of a
terrorist act or a violent act or the commission of robbery/dacoity/rioting
only if there occurs deaths of more than one person. I have failed to
understand as to from where the Tribunal has included in the aforesaid
provision of Section 123(c)(1) the language that more than one person must
die without which the incident will not be an 'untoward incident'. In the
opinion of this Court if the interpretation given by the Tribunal is accepted
then it would amount to a perverse interpretation of the aforesaid provision
and which would defeat the very intention of the legislature in providing for
compensation for an untoward incident.
FAO 402/2012 Page 3 of 5
6. I may note that though one of the contention urged on behalf of the
respondent was that it was possible that the deceased had not got down at the
Sadar Bazar Railway Station and it could be that he was chased by the
assailants into the Sadar Bazar Railway Station, but this argument is wholly
misconceived because the FIR recorded of the incident is by a co-passenger
of the deceased one Sh. Randhir Singh and the statement of Sh. Randhir
Singh shows that Ram Prakash deceased had got into the train at Jind and
had got down at the Sadar Bazar Railway
Station and whereafter there occurred the untoward incident. I may note that
there was another document being the 'Brief Facts' pertaining to the FIR,
and since this is certified copy I take note of the same, and which shows that
the police had come to the spot pursuant to a PCR call i.e call made to the
number 100 by a concerned citizen. Also as stated above no evidence has
been led by the respondent. Therefore, I reject the contention of the
respondent that the deceased Ram Prakash had not travelled from Ex-jind to
Sadar Bazar Railway Station and hold that the deceased was bonafide
passenger who died in an untoward incident at the Sadar Bazar Railway
Station.
7. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the
Tribunal is set aside. Appellant will be entitled to statutory compensation of
FAO 402/2012 Page 4 of 5
Rs. 4 lacs. Appellant will also be entitled to interest at 7 ½ % per annum
simple from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date
of payment. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
8. A copy of this judgment, for necessary information be sent to the
Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Delhi.
MAY 01, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
nk
