Delhi High Court
Kashmir Singh vs Union Of India on 17 August, 2016
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 17, 2016
+ FAO 315/2015
KASHMIR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shyam Singh Sisodia,
Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. In the impugned order, the Railway Tribunal has noted that the
appellant got injured while attempting to board the train from the 'off
side' of the platform. It is on this account that the Railway Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to compensation, as
sought for, in the claim petition.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence
on record to support the aforenoted finding of the Railway Tribunal,
which erroneously relies upon the statement of the Guard. It is pointed
out that the evidence of the Guard has not been recorded and so, his
statement cannot be relied upon and that appellant was a bona fide
passenger and so, he is entitled to compensation under the Railways Act,
1989 reliance is placed upon a Single Bench decision of the Bombay
High Court in Union of India Vs. Kamal & ors. IV (2014) ACC 281
(Bom.).
3. To controvert the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for respondent
has drawn attention of this Court to page-42 of the trial court record to
show that as per the Inquiry Report of the Railway Divisional Manager,
the Guard- Babu Ram had clearly said in his statement that injured had
fallen down from the train while trying to board it from the 'off side'.
Attention of this Court was drawn to the statement of Head Constable-
Bhale Ram to point out that even this witness had stated that the injured
had crossed the railway line and had tried to board the train from the side
of platform No.2. While drawing attention to Section 124A of the
Railways Act, it is pointed out that appellant had sustained grievous
injuries due to his own act, which was criminal, as he had unauthorizedly
crossed the railway lines and had tried to board the train from the wrong
side and so, he is not entitled to any compensation and thus, appellant's
claim petition has been rightly dismissed by the Railway Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the decision in
Kamal (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, as Section
18 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides that Tribunal shall
evolve its own procedure and is not bound by Code of Civil Procedure
and in a expeditious manner, the claim petition shall be decided.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the impugned order and the evidence on record, this Court finds that the
Inquiry Report of 10th July, 2014 contains the statement of the Guard as
well as the Head Constable and once this Inquiry Report has come on
record without any protest from appellant, he cannot be heard to say that
the statement of witnesses are undated because there is no challenge tothe
Inquiry Report of 10th July, 2014. No premium can be placed on the act
of a wrong doer even if he is a bona fide passenger. If a bona fide
passenger is found to be boarding the train from the wrong side and that
too, after unauthorizedly crossing the railway tracks, then such a
passenger is not entitled to any compensation as per the mandate of
Section 124 A of the Railway Act, 1989. Such a view is being taken as
Section 18 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 permits the
Tribunal to evolve its own procedure and the Railway Tribunal is not
bound by the procedure as laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. In the
face of Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 the decision
in Kamal (supra) is unappliable to the facts of the instant case. However,
this Court finds that appellant has been unfortunate in losing both his
hands when he fell from the train while boarding it from the wrong side.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent had
apprised this Court that Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of
India provides artificial hands at reasonable rates.
7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
deems it appropriate to invoke Rule 44 of the Railway Claim Tribunal
Act, 1989. The said Rule reads as under:-
"44. Inherent powrs of the Tribunal- Nothing in
these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the
inherent powers of the Tribunal to make such orders as may
be necessary for the end of justice or to provent abuse of the
process of the Tribunal."
8. To meet the ends of justice, in the pecularity of this case, by
recourse to sub-Rule 3 of Rule 3 of The Railway Accidents and Untoward
Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, it is directed that the respondent-
Railways shall deposit a sum of `80,000/- with Artificial Limbs
Manufacturing Corporation of India, Railway Colony, Paharganj, New
Delhi within four weeks of passing of this order, failing which the
awarded amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. till the date of its deposit.
As soon as the aforesaid amount is deposited with the Artificial Limbs
Manufacturing Corporation of India, appellant shall be put to notice by
the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India within two
weeks for preparation of artificial hands. The appellant shall appear
before the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India on 24th
October, 2016 or as and when called by said Corporation to have artificial
hands so that he is able to earn his livelihood and to survive with dignity.
The respondent-Railways shall ensure compliance of this judgment and
shall file the compliance report on or before 30th November, 2016. The
grant of limited compensation is confined to the facts of the instant case
and will not be treated as a precedent.
9. With aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 17, 2016
r
