Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005420
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO 30/2010
Date of Decision: 02.12.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
JAI PAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pavan Narang, Sr. Panel
Counsel, UOI with Mr. Himanshu Sethi, Ms.
Aishwarya Chhabra, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'), the appellants/claimants have assailed the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi whereby the claim application filed by them was dismissed.
2. Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that vide the impugned order, though Smt. Krishna Devi (the deceased) was held to be a bona fide passenger, however the Tribunal erred in arriving
Digitally Signed at a conclusion that the incident was not an 'untoward incident'. By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:09.12.2022 13:06:06
FAO 30/2010 Page 1 of 5 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005420
3. Per contra, Mr. Pavan Narang, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant No. 1 (husband of the deceased) had appeared as a witness and gave a statement which was contradictory to the stand taken in the claim application inasmuch as while in the application it was stated that the train had passed through the Sadar Bazar Railway Station, Delhi however, in his testimony it was stated otherwise.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire material placed on record.
5. In the claim application, it was stated that the appellant/claimant No. 1 (Sh. Jai Pal) was the husband of Smt. Krishna Devi (the deceased), while the other claimants were the son and daughters of the deceased. It was claimed that on 16.03.2007, the appellant No. 1 alongwith the deceased had travelled from Rewari to Sadar Bazar Railway Station by Train No. 4 D after purchasing Ticket bearing Nos. 82965 to 82968. It was further claimed that when the train reached Sadar Bazar Railway Station at about 9:20 a.m., Smt. Krishna Devi while alighting fell from the train on account of sudden & heavy jerk resulting in amputation of her right leg. Smt. Krishna Devi was removed to Lady Harding Medical College and later, to Smt. Sucheta Kiplani Hospital, New Delhi. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 28.05.2007. The post-mortem of the body was conducted at Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi on 29.05.2007.
6. The Tribunal held the deceased to a bona fide passenger. A perusal Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:09.12.2022 of the record would show that Ticket bearing Nos. 82965 to 82968 were 13:06:06
FAO 30/2010 Page 2 of 5 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005420
exhibited as Ex. AW1/7 before the Tribunal. It was observed that the respondent neither disputed the validity of the ticket(s) nor adduced any evidence to show that they were fake.
Insofar as the second aspect i.e., whether the incident was an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act is concerned, it is borne out from the record that DD No. 11A was registered by the police on 16.03.2007 wherein it was recorded that an intimation had been received on that day at about 9:20 a.m. to the effect that a lady's leg has been amputated by Train No. 4 D at Sadar Bazar Railway Station. It is not disputed that Smt. Krishna Devi was removed to the Lady Harding Medical College on 16.03.2007 at 10:10 a.m., and eventually passed away on the fateful day of 28.05.2007 at the Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi.
7. In the post-mortem examination Report prepared on 29.05.2007 at the Maulana Azad Medical College (Lok Nayak Hospital), it has been opined that 'death is due to septicemia consequent upon blunt force/surface impact to the lower limbs. All injuries were opined to be antemortem in nature and possible in rail traffic accident'. Even as per the DRM Report as well as the statement of appellant No. 1, it is apparent that the deceased and appellant No. 1 undertook the journey from Rewari to Sadar Bazar Railway Station after purchasing Ticket bearing Nos. 82965 to 82968. The appellant No. 1 in his statement had stated that he undertook the journey alongwith the deceased on 16.03.2007. It was further stated that he was an eye-witness to the incident and that the train had reached Sadar Bazar Railway Station at Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND 9:20 a.m. Signing Date:09.12.2022 13:06:06
FAO 30/2010 Page 3 of 5 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005420
8. The Tribunal held the death not to be on account of an 'untoward incident' by observing that the deceased was negligent as the injuries sustained by her were covered by Section 124A (b) of the Act as the train did not had scheduled stoppage at Sadar Bazar Railway Station. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that the averment made in the claim application to the effect that Train No. 4 D had stopped at Sadar Bazar Railway Station on 16.03.2007, is not disputed by the respondent. Even, during arguments before this Court, this aspect was not disputed on behalf of the respondent.
9. A submission was made that the deceased had suffered injuries on account of her own negligence. Insofar as the aspect of self-inflicted injuries is concerned, the law is settled in view of the decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi reported as (2019) 3 SCC 572, where the Supreme Court has noted thus:
"25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of 'self-inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault theory' under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor."
Digitally Signed (emphasis added)
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:09.12.2022
13:06:06
FAO 30/2010 Page 4 of 5
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005420
10. Based on the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was in fact, a bona fide passenger and the accident during which she suffered injuries was an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act.
11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding the amount of compensation in terms of the Act. The matter shall be listed at the first instance before the Tribunal on 12.12.2022. Let the compensation amount be paid to the appellants/claimants within three weeks thereafter.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
13. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Tribunal for information.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE DECEMBER 2, 2022/v
Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:09.12.2022 13:06:06
FAO 30/2010 Page 5 of 5
