Madhya Pradesh High Court
Achal Ahrirwar vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 4677 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
Achal Ahirwar S/o Shri Pyarelal
Ahirwar, Aged About 22 Years,
Occupation: Student R/o Village Dhikua
P.S. Khurai District Sagar (Madhya
Pradesh)
.....APPELLANT
(By. Mrs. Aparna Singh - Advocate)
AND
Union of India through General
Manager West Central Railway
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)
.....RESPONDENT
(By Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain - Advocate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 05.12.2023
Pronounced on : 12.12.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 01.09.2022
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, by which, the claim
application filed by the applicant-claimant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1987") has been dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrived before
the Railway Claims Tribunal (in short "RCT").
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized that on
08.06.2018, the injured-claimant purchased a second class travel ticket from Sagar
to Khurai while he was sitting near ticket counter along with his other co-
passengers. At that time, Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak came there. The
Prashant Rajak earlier left the train by Bina Express. Rajkumar and claimant
himself boarded a general coach when he was near the gate Rajkumar went inside,
thereafter, train started after leaving Sagar Station due to sudden jolting of the train
he could not maintain his balance and fell down from the moving train near
Rahatgarh Railway Station due to which his right hand was cut above the elbow
due to the train accident and after the incident the railway staff/Railway Protection
Force Sagar taken him to District Hospital Sagar for treatment in a 108 Ambulance
from where he has been given first aid and shifted to Bundelkhand Medical
College Sagar for treatment, later he was shifted to Sagarshree Hospital, Sagar and
he has given a report and same has been registered a case in Crime No.0193/2018
by Sagar Police under sections 328, 326, 307, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and in the FIR
Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prasant Kumar Rajak were shown them as an accused and
investigation taken place. Due to incident his travel ticket, college bag, luggage
etc. were lost.
4. That the claimant-injured filed an application claiming compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- before the RCT due to an untoward incident as he was a bonafide
passenger on account of injury sustained by him in the train accident.
5. That the respondent railway contended the claim by filing written statement
denying the case to be an untoward incident within the meaning of section 123(c)
of the Railway Act, further contended that the claimant is not at all a bonafide
passenger and he was not found a travel ticket, further contended that after the
incident Investigation Officer submitted a written report to the GRP/Sagar stating
that on 08.06.2018 the claimant came to Sagar Station to go Khurai by Kshipra
Express, they are known friends Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak met him.
Due to train being late all three of them entered in the passenger compartment of
Sagar Station then Rajkumar took out a small bottle perfume from his bag put it on
a white towel and applied it on the nose and mouth of the claimant due to which he
became unconscious and when he regained conscious in the hospital, he found that
his right hand was cut and the said report registered in FIR as Crime No.0193/2018
for the offences under sections 328, 326, 307, 201 r/w 34 of IPC against Rajkumar
Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak and took up the investigation. Further contended that
the incident does not comes under section 124(A) of Railways Act and, therefore,
the claim petition filed by the claimant liable to be rejected on the ground that the
injured was not a bonafide passenger and there were no untoward incident and he
prays to dismiss claim petition.
6. The learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of rival pleadings framed the
following issues :
"1. Whether the applicant proves that he was a bonafide
passenger of the train in question when the alleged untoward
incident occurred ?
2. Whether the applicant proves that the alleged untoward
incident falls within the meaning of section 123(c)(2) r/w section
124(A) of Railways Act, 1989 ?
3. Whether the applicant proves that he has suffered injuries
as alleged ?
4. Whether the respondent-Railway Administration is
protected u/s 124(A) of the Railways Act 1989 and is not liable to
pay any compensation to the applicant ?
5. relief and cost ?
7. In order to establish the claim of the claimant at the time of inquiry the
injured himself examined as AW-1 and Ex.A-1 to A-13 were got marked on behalf
of the injured-claimant. None were examined on behalf of the respondents. Ex.R-1
investigation report of Divisional Railway Manager got marked on behalf of the
respondent.
8. On appreciation of evidence of AW-1 and placing reliance on Ex.A-1 to A-
13 i.e. true copy of report given to GRP/Sagar Police by the claimant, true copy of
the FIR and other relevant documents etc. and Ex.R-1 inquiry report of DRM, the
learned Tribunal in the instant case has come to the conclusion that the
injured/claimant has completely failed to prove his claim with documentary
evidence that he is a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident. Further
observed that the claimant has failed to prove that the incident happened in an
untoward incident and further observed that if really the claimant fallen from
running train due to the jolting of the train, he would have given a report in such a
manner but he has given a report to the police against Rajkumar Ahirwar and
Prashant Rajak who took out a small green bottle containing perfume from his bag
and applied to the claimant and he became unconsciousness by inhaling an
intoxicate substance and he fallen from the running train, therefore, he is not a
bonafide passenger, the incident is not occurred as untoward incident, therefore,
the claim application dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
9. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Tribunal
the applicant/claimant preferred this appeal to set-aside the judgment dated
01.09.2022 and to award compensation.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the learned
Tribunal has passed the impugned order without appreciating the evidence on
record in a proper perspective. Further contended that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the injured was a bonafide passenger in the train at the time of the
incident and he suffered an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c) of the
Railways Act. Further contended that the tribunal has erroneously disbelieved the
case of the applicant and rejected his claim, therefore, he prays to set-aside the
judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 01.09.2022 and the Railway
Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railway Administration
submitted that there are two necessary ingredients which needs to be proved in
strict parameters : the injured being a bonafide passenger and second being the
occurrence of the untoward incident as per the finding of the learned Tribunal,
those ingredients have not been found proved and further contended that there was
a pre-planned conspiracy done by Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak and they
boarded the train along with the injured and making the injured unconscious by
inhaling an intoxicated substance and he lost consciousness and fallen from the
running train and further contended that after the incident he was shifted to the
Hospital and later he presented report, basing on the report, police registered a case
in Crime No.0193/2018 under sections 328, 326, 307, 201 r/s 34 of IPC against the
above two persons stated supra, therefore, the tribunal has rightly dismissed the
claim of the applicant and further contended that there are no ground to interfere
with the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal and needs no interference by
this Court and pray to dismiss the appeal.
12. Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is :
" Where there is any merit in the appeal to allow ?"
13. Considered the submissions of the respective counsels representing the
parties, perused and assessed the entire evidence including exhibited documents. A
perusal of impugned judgment would show that the tribunal framed the issues
whether the applicant proves that he was a bonafide passenger of the train in
question when the alleged untoward incident occurred as defined u/s 123(c)(2) r/w
section 124(A) of the Railways Act and hold that the injured was not a bonafide
passenger because his journey ticket was not found from his possession or at the
scene of occurrence and the learned Tribunal further observed that the appellant is
fallen from the train due to conspiracy done by Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prashant
Rajak in view of making the claimant unconscious by inhaling an intoxicated
substance and he lost consciousness and he had no knowledge about the incident
and he regained conscious in the hospital, therefore, it is not a case of accidentally
incident happened.
15. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer section 124(A) of the Railways Act
which read as follow:
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward
incidents.--When in the course of working a railway an
untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has
been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the
Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger
who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who
has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages
in respect thereof, the Railway Administration shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be
liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be
prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by
the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such
untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under
this section by the Railway Administration if the passenger
dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or
insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical
treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due
to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'passenger'
includes--
i. a railway servant on duty; and
ii. (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for
travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date
or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an
untoward incident."
16. In the light of the above clause (d) of proviso to section 124A of the
Railways Act. Supported his report submitted to the Sagar Police and registered a
case in Crime No.0193/2018, the criminal act committed by his close associates
Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak and they have played a role of conspiracy
and took out something from the bottle like perfume and jokingly put it on his nose
and mouth and it smelt it and thereafter he lost consciousness and later he fell down
from the running train. Therefore, it is not a case of untoward incident as he was
not a bonafide passenger. The claimant failed to prove that he lost his right hand
due to untoward incident. Section 125 prescribes application of compensation
before the Claims Tribunal either u/s 124 or 124(A) by a person who has sustained
injuries or suffered any loss. The term of "untoward incident" as used above fell for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jameela Vs. Union of
India, (2010) ACJ 2453 (SC) on construing two provisions contained in Chapter
VIII of the Railways Act, 1989.
7. It is not denied by the Railway that M. Hafeez fell down from the
train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was,
therefore, clearly a "passenger" for the purpose of section 124A as
clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under section
124A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful
act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. But
the proviso to the section says that the railway administration would
have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the
passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons
enumerated in clauses (a) to (e).
8. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railway
that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-
inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own
criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or
he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the
train was, thus, clearly accidental.
9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by
the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train
compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself
as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very
uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act
mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124 A. A criminal act
envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent
or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a
running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without
anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the
railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.
17. A careful reading of the above said judgment, it is the case of the railways
that the claimant lost his right hand due to conspiracy done by two Rajkumar
Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak, he was in the state of intoxication he lost
consciousness he fallen from the train and he regained in the hospital and,
therefore, the incident happened is not an untoward incident and Ex.A/2 his own
report and FIR substantiate the plea taken by the railway administration coupled
with Ex.R/1 dated 02.04.2021 submitted by Investigation Officer, Sagar to the
Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Jabalpur have stated that Rajkumar
Ahirwar took out something in a green bottle of perfume from his bag and put in
his towel and jokingly put it in the nose and mouth of the claimant and its smelled
like perfume later he lost consciousness and he fall from the running train and the
right hand of the claimant was cut and the said incident does not fall in the category
of untoward incident and the Ex.R-1 coupled with the evidence of AW-1 and
another DRM report dated 12.04.2021 submitted by Divisional Security
Commissioner and he reiterated the same set of facts as stated in the earlier report,
therefore, under the above facts and circumstances, the Railway Administration
would have no liability to pay any compensation in view of the injuries sustained
by the claimant. It is a fit case falls under the category of clause (d) of proviso to
section 124A of the Railway Act.
18. The accident in which the claimant got injured is not covered under Section
124A of the Railways Act. The accident occurred falls within the ambit of clause
(d) of the proviso to section 124A of the Railways Act. Hence, in my opinion the
present case falls under clause (d) of the proviso to section 124A and not in the
main body of section 124A of the Railways Act, therefore, the learned Claims
Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the claimants.
19. Under these circumstances, as discussed earlier no valid ticket was produced
by the claimant and the report of the claimant clearly discloses that after he became
unconscious he fallen from the train and the incident happened not due to
accidental fall but due to some other reasons as stated above, therefore, the learned
tribunal is not inclined to accept the contention and dismissed the claim.
20. In the light of the discussion, I am of the considered view that the claimant
lost his right hand below the shoulder was not due to untoward accident and he was
fallen from the train due to inhaling the intoxicated substance and that he had no
knowledge about the incident, it is case of conspiracy done by the above two
accused persons and the learned Claims Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim
petition, therefore, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and no
illegality or irregularity and needs no interference by this Court.
21. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is
accordingly dismissed.
i. The order passed in Case No.O.A-IIu/BPL/107/2021 by the
learned Railway Claims Tribunal is confirmed. No order as to costs.
ii. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending for
consideration shall stands closed.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
***
BETWEEN:-
Achal Ahirwar S/o Shri Pyarelal
Ahirwar, Aged About 22 Years,
Occupation: Student R/o Village Dhikua
P.S. Khurai District Sagar (Madhya
Pradesh)
.....APPELLANT
(By. Mrs. Aparna Singh - Advocate)
AND
Union of india through General Manager
West Central Railway Jabalpur
(Madhya Pradesh)
.....RESPONDENT
(By Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain - Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for the appellant : Mrs. Aparna Singh, Advocate.
Counsel for the respondent : Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 12.12.2023.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment ? Yes/No
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
rk.
Date: 2023.12.13 11:19:59 +05'30'
