Union Of India vs Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav
2023 Latest Caselaw 2196 MP

                                                              1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                              MISC. APPEAL No. 2624 of 2019

                         BETWEEN:-
                         UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL MANAGER SUTH EAST
                         CENTRAL BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI HARSHWARDHAN SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE JOHAN
                               L A L R./O VILLAGE NARIYARA WARD NO 13
                               MANDIR      MOHALLA   P.  NARIYARA   P.S.
                               MULAMULA TAHSIL AKALTARA JANJHGIR
                               (CHHATTISGARH)

                         2.    SMT. SAVITA YADAV W/O SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR
                               YA D AV VILLAGE NARIYARA WARD NO. 13
                               MANDIR MOHALLA P.O NARIYARA PS MULMULA
                               TAH. AKALTARA DISTT. JANJHGIR CHAMPA
                               (CHHATTISGARH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI RAJESH SONI - ADVOCATE)

                               This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                              ORDER

The appeal is heard finally.

This appeal is filed by the Union of India being aggrieved of judgment dated 28/02/2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench Bhopal in O.A./IIu/BPL/2018/105 on the ground that as per the report of the D.R.M., it was a case of self-inflicted injury and, therefore, in terms of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 2/8/2023 11:47:52 AM

provisions contained in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, case of the claimants will fall under an exception and being not covered under the definition of untoward incident as mentioned in Section 123 (c) (ii), the claimants are not entitled to any compensation which has been arbitrarily and erroneously awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.

Shri Rajesh Soni supports the judgment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that no oral evidence was adduced to prove the D.R.M. report. There is no material on record to show that it was a case of self- inflicted injury or the injuries were suicidal in nature so to take them out of the

purview of untoward incident as defined in Section 123 (c) (ii) of the Railways Act and to constitute a class which is prohibited under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

In view of such facts and the evidence available on record, no indulgence is required in the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 2/8/2023 11:47:52 AM