Sri Bihari Lal Gupta vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 363 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   [Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction]
                         M.A. No. 137 of 2013
       Sri Bihari Lal Gupta                        .... .. ...   Appellant(s)
                                Versus

      The Union of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur
      (Bihar) Pin Code- 844101.                             .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                          ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :-Video Conferencing) .........

      For the Appellant(s)            : Mr. K. M. Murari, Advocate.
      For the Respondent              : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sinha, Advocate (Rly.)
                          ..........

14/25.01.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant/claimant (Sri Bihari Lal Gupta) has preferred this Misc. Appeal against the decision/judgment dated 21.03.2013 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Case No.OA (IIU)/RNC/2008/0071 [Old No.OA (IIU)-8071/08] whereby the claim application of the claimant has been dismissed on the ground that though deceased (Smt. Vimla Devi) was a bonafide passenger and the applicant and his wife both were senior citizens of 68 years and 61 years respectively, but did not avail concession ticket from Varansi to Ranchi and as per the Police final Report (R-3) police investigation report states that deceased was trying to board the train, but because of crowd, she could not get in and fell down. Since the train had already started moving hence deceased was trying to board a moving train, hence, this is self-inflicted injury. Further, just before Dehri-On-Sone Station, a major junction, namely, Mugal Sarai station comes, where the train's stoppage is for 20 minutes, the deceased instead of taking water at Mughal Sarai, chose to take water at Dehri-On-Sone, where the stoppage is only two minutes, despite being a senior citizen, she chose to indulge in an action, which was not very safe or prudent. The applicant (husband) who is educated, did not guide his wife as to correct course of action. Both husband and wife were well off senior citizens. Husband is a educated, retired Government employee from Patratu Electricty Board and if the train was so crowded, the husband should not have allowed his wife to get down at a station, where the stoppage was only two minutes. This tantamounts to self-inflicted injury. Hence, the incident will come under exception (b) of Section 124A, as self-inflicted injury and rejected the claim application.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has to consider the issues:- (i) whether the Vimla Devi was a bona-fide passenger

on 05.08.2008, (ii) whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act has occurred with the person injured?

4. Though it is a benevolent legislation, the learned Tribunal has taken hyper technical view that why both the passengers i.e. deceased and her husband did not avail concession of senior citizens. Why they did not take water at Mugal Sarai Station where train has stoppage for 20 minutes and the deceased fell down while she was trying to board the train as per the Police Final Report which has been brought on record as Exhibit (R-3).

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that these issues are not material that why a person has not taken concessional ticket. Secondly, a person has not taken water at Mugal Sarai where the train was standing for 20 minutes and she took water at Dehri-On-Sone, where the train only stopped for two minutes is of no help for the railway. The occurrence is of dated 05.08.2008 which is a month of August in the season of Summer, when people feel thirsty.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that water was being carried by them at Mugal Sarai JN and finishes by them while train reaches at Dehri-On-Sone Railway Station. Normally the husbands are more aged than wife, as such, wife prefers to bring water so that she may get help of the co- passengers in getting space for exgress and ingress in the Railway, as such, reasoning assigned by the Railway Claims Tribunal in refuting the claim application is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Railway has not come up with this also that in the train the drinking water was made available, as such, plea of self-inflicted injury and claim petition comes under exception (b) of Section 124 of the Railway Act, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has further submitted that deceased was a bonafide passenger even though the claimant and the deceased have not taken the benefits of concession rules by purchasing Senior citizen tickets; secondly the water was required at Dehri-On-Sone Station where the lady got down, no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway that why the lady has not gone for taking water. No evidence has been brought on record that Railway has made such arrangement in each compartment to have drinking water. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway that train was not crowded, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in

2008(9) SCC 527, it was upon the Railway to explain. Since no contrary evidence has been brought on record, this Court may consider the incident to be an untoward incident which comes under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

8. Further the amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has been enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- vide Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 effective from 01.01.2017, which has already been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, reported in 2019(3) SCC 410 in para 11 which is quoted hereunder:-

"11. This issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi (supra) is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability has arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration."

9. As such, the instant Misc. Appeal may be allowed by granting compensation of Rs.4 Lacs along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 05.12.2008 till the date of indemnifying the Award or a sum of Rs.8 Lacs whichever is higher in view of the latest amendment made in the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 effective from 01.01.2017.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway, Mr. Vijay Kr. Sinha has opposed the prayer and submitted that reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the appeal is well-founded and this Court may not interfere with the same, as the case of the appellant/applicant does not inspire confidence.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material brought on record, it appears that the applicant (Bihari Lal Gupta) has been examined as A.W.1 and has categorically stated in Paras 2 to 6 which are as follows :-

2.That the untoward incident was occurred near Platform No.6 of Dehri-On- Sone JN on 05.08.2008 while deceased Smt. Vimla Devi boarding the Ranchi- Varanasi Intercity being train No.8612 DN.

3.That on 05.08.2008, the present deponent along with his deceased wife Smt.

Vimla Devi was travelling from Varanasi JN to Daltonganj on a proper and valid train journey ticket bearing No.28663225 by Varanasi-Ranchi Intercity train.

4. That during the course of journey, the deceased de-boarded the train at platform No.4 which is connected with platform No.6 of Dehri-On-Sone JN for having water and thereafter while she was boarding the alleged train, the train started moving and in that process due to heavy jolt and jostling of the passenger, she lost her balance and was accidentally fell down from the alleged moving train and died on the spot due to injuries sustained in this untoward incident.

5.That the present deponent who is eye-witness to the incident, immediately raised alarm upon which the train stopped there for a moment and the deponent got down from the train and informed all railway officials including GRP, Dehri- On- Sone JN.

6.That in this regard, a memo was issued by S.M. On duty at DOS JN upon which an U.D. Case being No.17 of 2008 has been lodged with the concerned GRP, who after due inquiry at length as well as recording the statement of various persons including the present deponent, have submitted final report stating therein that it is case of accidental death due to fall from the alleged train.

And (Bihari Lal Gupta)- A.W.1 specifically stated in Cross examination :-

"iz'u% D;k vki i<s fy[ks gSa\ vki ikuh ds fy, Lo;a D;ksa ugha x,\ D;k ikuh dk cksry ?kj ls ysdj ugha tkrs\ mÙkj% eSa i<+k fy[kk gw¡A esjh rch;r [kjkc Fkh blfy, eSa ikuh ysus ugha x;kA gekjk llqjky cukjl ls 50 fd-eh- gS ikuh ysdj pys Fks ysfdu yach nwjh dh ;k=k esa xehZ ds fnuksa esa ikuh [kRe gks c;k Fkk blfy, esjh iRuh ikuh ysus mrjh FkhA"

That so far bonafide passenger is concerned, the deceased (Smt. Vimla Devi) and her husband (Sri Bihari Lal Gupta)/applicant were travelling in Train No.8612 DN on 05.08.2008 from Varanasi to Ranchi holding proper ticket No.28663225 of 2nd Class journey. It is also apparent from the record that the deceased was trying to board the train, but because of crowd she could not get in and fell down. Even if she fell down in the midst of the train journey while collecting water at Dehri-On-Sone Railway Station, she was a bonafide passenger and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), the incident comes under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act considering it to be a benevolent legislation. The reason which has been assigned by the learned Tribunal is hypothetical which cannot be accepted to refute the claim of the claimant.

12. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside.

13. Accordingly, the judgment dated dated 21.03.2013 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Case No.OA (IIU)/RNC/2008/0071 is set aside.

14. The instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed.

15. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay the applicant/claimant a sum of Rs.4 Lacs along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 05.12.2008 till the date of actual indemnifying the award or a sum of Rs.8 Lacs whichever is higher in favour of the claimant.

16. Let the LCR be sent down forthwith.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/