Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Dinesh Shukla vs Union Of India on 9 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2419 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. SHRI DINESH SHUKLA S/O SHRI SHARDA PRASAD
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O MAIN
ROAD 27, KHOLI BINA BILASPUR DIST.
BILASPUIR (CG)` (CHHATTISGARH)
2. SMT. ANJALI SHUKLA W/O SHRI DINESH SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MAIN ROAD 27 KHOLI
BINA BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH
EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI C.M. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Heard on : 04.01.2024
Pronounced on: 09.02.2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDERS
This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987
has been filed feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.08.2017 by Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No.OA/llu/BPL/2014/0200, whereby the
application for compensation regarding death of Sourabh Shukla on 23.07.013
in Railway accident has been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that appellants filed an application under Section
16 of the Railways Tribunal Act before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal
regarding death of their son Sourabh Shukla aged about 23 years, occupation -
mechanical engineer asserting that on 23.08.2013, he boarded in Amarkantak
express, train no.12854 vide general ticket bearing No.49875891 dated
23.07.2013 (A-6) from Belghana to Bilaspur and died at Kushalpur railway
station, they claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has denied the contents of
application and DRM South East Central Railway submitted a report that
deceased died due to his own negligence.
5. The learned Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence and
admitted documents Ex.A1-A10.
6. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the cause of death is sudden
death due to multiple vital injury by train and referring to Mr. Arshad Nawaj
point man's observation that he saw the victim out of train and discarded the
version of applicants that deceased slipped and fell down from running train.
The learned Tribunal also recorded the finding that ticket was probably bought
after departure of train by which deceased said to have traveled. It has also
recorded the finding that Amarkantak Express was passing though a loop line
of platform No.1 of Uslapur station at slow speed and was not scheduled to
stop at the said station. No incident of Jerk/ACP occurred in the train during the
entire course of journey and dismissed the application.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the award, this appeal has been preferred on the
ground that claims Tribunal erred in law and facts by holding that the deceased
was not bonafide purchaser of the train ticket and Tribunal also wrongly held
that incident was not a untoward incident.
8. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.
9. Firstly, the Court is considering the finding of Tribunal regarding
journey ticket A/6. The journey ticket A/6 was brought on 23.07.2013 regarding
journey form Belgehna to Bilaspur at 04.36 am for journey through Super fast
train in second class.
10. The reference of Shri P.K. Haldar discloses that train No.12854
passed the Kushalpur Railway Station at 05.07 am on 23.07.2013. So finding
of Tribunal that ticket was brought after the train passed the Belghana station is
based only on conjunctures and surmises because no one can predict that some
incident will happen after some time. So it is found proved that deceased was
bonafide passenger of train No.12854 Amarkantak express.
11. There was no reason to alight from train at Kushalpur Station by the
deceased. In Jamila and Ors Vs. Union of India AIR 2013(5) M.P.H.T.
265, it is held that negligence of passenger does not have effect on liability of
railway and relevant para No.5 is being referred which reads as :
"Even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from
the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not
have any effect on the compensation payable under Section
124A of the Act."
12. In view thereof, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that
deceased was not a bonafide passenger, his death was not due to untoward
incident. The order dated 10.08.2017 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in
Case No.OA/llu/BPL/2014/0200 deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
13. Since the deceased died of accidental falling from train, which as per
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 is defined as untoward incident
and as per Section 124-A of 1989 Act, in case a passenger dies on account of
untoward incident, 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 death of
passenger.
14. Schedule appended with Railway Accidents and untoward incidents
(Compensation), Rules, 1990 provides for an amount of compensation in case
of death Rs.4,00,000/-
15. In view whereof while setting aside the impugned order passed by
Railways Claims Tribunal, the claim filed by the appellants is allowed. The
respondents-Railways are directed to pay the compensation to the tune of
Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of application
under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
16. The appeal is allowed to the extent above. Costs as incurred.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
DevS
