Union Of India vs Shaibya Das And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3742 Gua

                                                             Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010183152022




                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No.: I.A.(Civil)/2920/2022

         UNION OF INDIA
         REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER (CLAIMS)
         N.F. RAILWAY
         MALIGAON
         GUWAHATI- 781001.


          VERSUS

         SHAIBYA DAS AND 3 ORS.
         W/O LATE PRANESH DAS
         VILL.- UTTAR MAJIDKHANA
         P.O.- TATPARA
         P.S.- SAMUKTALA
         DIST.- ALIPURDUAR
         WEST BENGAL
         PIN- 736208.

         2:SHEFALI DAS ROY
         MARRIED DAUGHTER OF LATE PRANESH DAS

         VILL.- UTTAR MAJIDKHANA

         P.O.- TATPARA

         P.S.- SAMUKTALA

         DIST.- ALIPURDUAR
         WEST BENGAL
         PIN- 736208.
         3:DIPALI ROY DAS
         MARRIED DAUGHTER OF LATE PRANESH DAS

         VILL.- UTTAR MAJIDKHANA
                                                                          Page No.# 2/3


            P.O.- TATPARA

            P.S.- SAMUKTALA

            DIST.- ALIPURDUAR
            WEST BENGAL
            PIN- 736208.
            4:SUJATA ROY DAS
            MARRIED DAUGHTER OF LATE PRANESH DAS

            VILL.- UTTAR MAJIDKHANA

            P.O.- TATPARA

            P.S.- SAMUKTALA

            DIST.- ALIPURDUAR
            WEST BENGAL
            PIN- 736208.
            ------------

Advocate for : MR. K GOGOI Advocate for : appearing for SHAIBYA DAS AND 3 ORS.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

23.09.2022

Heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the applicant.

This is an application for stay of the operation of the judgment and order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati bench at Guwahati in Claim Application No. OA-IIu-37/2020.

Issue notice, returnable on 07.11.2022.

Steps for service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by registered post with A/D as well as through usual process within 3 (three) days.

Page No.# 3/3

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the perusal of Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act, 1989 would show that the person having a valid ticket or a pass would be considered to be a passenger. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on perusal of Section 123 and 124 of the said Act it would be seen that the extent of liabilities of the Railways is limited to payment of compensation only to passengers or to Railway servants on duty. Further referring to Section 123 (2) of the said Act, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers may also be construed to be an untoward incident. But in the instant case, the Tribunal below completely failed in taking into consideration that the claimant failed to prove that the deceased was a passenger. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel submits that this is a fit case for stay of the impugned judgment and order till the disposal of the instant appeal.

This Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to hear the respondents prior to the disposal of the instant application.

However, in the meantime, this Court stays the judgment and order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati bench at Guwahati in Claim Application No. OA-IIu-37/2020 till the next date.

List accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant