Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Haricharan Dhanak on 7 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
M.A. No.3523 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL
MANAGER WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.K. JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HARICHARAN DHANAK S/O LATE LACHU
DHANAK R/O GRAM SUMRERI P.O.
GADHOLA JANGIR THA. KHURAI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAWAHAR DHANAK S/O LATE LACHU
DHANAK GRAM SUMRERI, P.O. GADHOLA
JANGIR, THANA AND TAHSIL KHURAI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KUBHCHANDRA DHANAK S/O LATE
LACHU DHANAK GRAM SUMRERI, P.O.
GADHOLA JANGIR, THANA AND TAHSIL
KHURAI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 07.12.2023
Pronounced on 07.02.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 2 -
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Union of India under
Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for brevity "Railway
Act") being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.03.2019 passed in Case
No.OA/Llu/2015/185 awarding compensation in favour of the claimants
on account of death of father of claimants while he was travelling by train
No.Damoh-Kota Shuttle Passenger from Sumreri to Bina.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.2014 Lachu Dhanak (father
of claimants/respondents herein) was travelling from Sumreri to Bina
bearing ticket No.B64648818 by train No.Damoh-Kota Shuttle Passenger.
Due to heavy rush in train, deceased was compelled to travel by standing
near the door of coach alongwith other passengers. Due to jerk and push by
passengers, he fell down from the running train near Khaira Naka, Khurai
Railway Station. In the incident, he sustained fatal injuries. By 108
Ambulance, he was admitted to Government Hospital, Khurai where
during treatment he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants/respondents
herein being son of deceased filed claim application under Section 16 of
the Railway Act seeking compensation. Being aggrieved by this order, this
Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by Union of India.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that deceased Lachu
Dhanak was not a bonafide passenger and he was not fallen down from the
running train. He further submitted that the deceased was not having a
- 3 -
valid ticket, but learned Tribunal has committed grave error in recording
the finding that deceased was a bonafide passenger. Learned counsel for
appellant has placed reliance in the case of Kamrunnissa Vs. Union of
India, (2019) 12 SCC 391. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted
that deceased Lachu Dhanak was mentally disturbed person and he was
taking treatment from the hospital at Gwalior. The aforesaid incident took
place due to negligence on the part of deceased himself. The findings of
the Railway Claims Tribunal is contrary to the provision of Section 124 of
the Railway Act, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay compensation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the
deceased was travelling in the train having a valid ticket. The ticket was
produced before the Tribunal and finding of the Tribunal is based on that
ticket. He further submitted that although the deceased was a mental
patient and he was under treatment since the last about 15 years but there
was no serious mental problem. In routine way, deceased alone used to
visit Gwalior for his treatment. Learned counsel for respondents has placed
reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jameela
and others Vs. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 3705. The relevant extract of
the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
"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
- 4 -
mentioned in Clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124A. 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."
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the record, it is found that certified copy of journey
Ticket No.B64648818 dated 05.10.2014 worth Rs.10/- was produced
before the Tribunal. Appellant had enclosed statement of Haricharan
Dhanak alongwith DRM report before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
wherein Haricharan Dhanak had stated that he purchased the ticket for his
father and got him seated in the train at about 8:30 on 05.10.2014 at
Sumreri Station. There was no material on record to disbelieve the
statement of Haricharan Dhanak, therefore, finding recorded by the
Tribunal that the deceased was a bonafide passenger is based on oral and
documentary evidence produced on record. Thus, finding of the tribunal is
affirmed.
7. In the case of Kamrunnissa (supra), it is held that accident has not
taken place when the deceased was boarding the train at railway station. It
is found that the when deceased was crossing the railway track, he did not
notice the coming train and he was over run by the trian. But in the present
matter, it is found by learned Railway Claims Tribunal that the deceased
was a bonafide passenger and at the time of accident, he was travelling in
- 5 -
the train. Therefore, the case of Kamrunnissa (supra) is not applicable in
the present matter.
8. In the present case, it is also found that deceased was bonafide
passenger. Documents indicate that deceased was a patient of mental
sickness and he was under the treatment since last about 15 years but the
deceased alone used to visit Gwalior for his treatment. If the deceased
alone could go to Gwalior for his treatment and return to his place since
the last about 15 years, then it is apparent that the deceased was not so
mentally sick. Therefore, this Court is not impressed by the arguments of
learned counsel for appellant that the deceased fell down from the running
train due to his own negligence.
9. Since, it is not a case of self inflicted injuriy, Railway Administratio
failed to lead any evidence to show that despite there being vacancy/room
in the bogie, the deceased on his own volition was travelling in a negligent
manner close to the open gate. None of the ingredients of Section 124-A
can be attracted so to deny just compensation as has been awarded by
learned Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants.
10. In view of above, appellant has failed to make out any case for
indulgence, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. Record of the Tribunal be sent back.
(PRMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
Sateesh
