Delhi High Court
Tuntun Kumar vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2017
DECIDED ON : 18th DECEMBER, 2017.
+ FAO 78/2015
TUNTUN KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Navneet Goyal with Ms.Kavita Tyagi,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Shipra Shukla, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P GARG, J.
CM No.4757/2015 (Delay)
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing
the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
FAO 78/2015
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Tuntun
Kumar under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
(hereinafter 'the Tribunal') to challenge the legality and correctness of
an order dated 20.03.2014 whereby the claim petition to award
compensation was dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. On 19.06.2012 while travelling along with his
brother Dharmender on 'Garhwal Express' from Chanderpur Siau to
Delhi Shahdara, the victim-Tuntun Kumar accidently fell down from
the crowded compartment of the train, due to sudden jerk and jostling of
passengers inside the coach and sustained grievous injuries leading to
amputation of both his hands. The victim was taken to Dr.Hedgewar
Arogya Sansthan by PCR who reached the spot on getting information
from an unidentified caller at 10.20 p.m. on 19.06.2012 that an
individual was lying in an injured condition at platform No.3 of
Shahdara Railway Station. The victim was admitted in the said hospital
on 10.55 p.m. with the alleged history of 'fall from train'.
3. The Tribunal declined compensation to the victim solely on the
ground that at the time of admission in the hospital at 10.55 hours, the
victim was 'smelling' alcohol. The victim was, thus, in a state of
intoxication at the time of incident and under Section 124A of the
Railways Act 1989 dealing with compensation, no compensation is
allowed when the untoward incident occurs on account of
'intoxication'. The appellant denied if he was in the state of intoxication
at the time of accident.
4. On perusal of the record before the Tribunal, it reveals that in the
written statement filed by the Railways there was no specific assertion
if the victim was in a state of intoxication at the time of accident. It was
rather averred that the appellant was not holding any valid pass or ticket
and was not travelling in the train, as alleged. It was even denied that
both legs (wrongly mention instead of arms) of the victim were
amputed.
5. The appellant filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.AW-1).
In the cross-examination, nothing was suggested to him if he was in the
state of intoxication or that the accident was due to his specific act
because of intoxication. It was also not enquired as to when the
appellant had consumed the liquor and if so at what place.
6. Perusal of the file further reveals that it was not a case of the
Railways that the appellant was under the state of intoxication. Its
Inquiry Report dated 14.02.2013 revealed that the victim had sustained
injuries due to negligence and carelessness while crossing lines.
Undoubtedly, the MLC recorded that the victim was 'smelling of
alcohol'. It, however, does not elaborate as to how the examining
doctor had came to the said conclusion. Admittedly, no blood sample
of the victim was taken to ascertain if there were alcohol contents in the
blood at the relevant time. Medical examination rather records the
alleged history whereby it was informed that it was a case of fall from
train. The MLC is to be read in its entirety. 'Smelling' of alcohol at the
time of admission could not by itself prove that there was direct nexus
between the alcohol and the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant
which had occurred because of fall from the train. The respondent did
not produce the examining doctor to ascertain the true facts.
7. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order declining
compensation to the appellant cannot be sustained. Applying the
principles laid down by the Supreme court in Rathi Menon vs.Union of
India (2001) 3 SCC 714, the appellant is held entitled to compensation
of `8,00,000/- to the Schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward
Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 (as on the date of
this judgment).
8. The appeal is allowed and compensation of `8,00,000/- along
with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application
i.e.14.09.2012 is awarded to the appellant.
9. The Railways is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount by way
of cheque in appellant's name on the date fixed.
10. Renotify on 19th January, 2018 for disbursement of the
compensation.
11. The appellant shall remain present in Court on the next date of
hearing along with passbook of his savings bank account near the place
of his residence as well as PAN Card and Aadhar Card.
12. Copy of this judgment be sent to Railway Claims Tribunal,
Principal Bench at Delhi.
13. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties
under signatures of the Court Master.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 18, 2017/sa
