Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Deepa Sahu vs Union Of India on 18 June, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2960 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
SMT DEEPA SAHU W/O SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SAHU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O BADAH BAZAR, MOHAN
NAGAR, SAUGOR DISTRICT, SAUGOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI M. SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE )
AND
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ASEEM DIXIT - ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 18.03.2024
Pronounced on : 18.06.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 being aggrieved by the judgment dated
13.07.2017 passed in Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/2013/0233 by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhopal.
2) In short, the case of the appellant/ claimant is that on 1.7.2011 she
met with a railway accident when she was travelling by Gorakhpur
Lokmanya Tilak Express Train from Kanpur Central to Saugor with her
family after purchasing valid ticket for the said journey. When the train
arrived at Bina station, the appellant and her family members came near
the door of the coach in order to get down. The train stopped at the station
and when she was getting down from the train it suddenly started due to
which she lost her balance, fell down and suffered injuries / amputation of
her right leg above knee and four toes of the left leg. As untoward accident
was caused she filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal under
Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act for compensation. The
respondent filed the reply and denied the averments but admitted that she
was a bonafide passenger of the train but also submitted that accident was
caused due to sole negligence of the appellant, therefore, she is not entitled
for compensation.
3) It is further submitted that the appellant appeared as a witness before
the Tribunal. The respondent did not lead any evidence. Even then the
Claims Tribunal rejected the claims application vide order dated
13.07.2017 against which this appeal has been filed on the ground that she
was a bonafide passenger and the untoward incident happened, therefore,
claim ought to have been allowed and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to be
paid.
4) Learned counsel for the appellant Shri M. Shafiqullah relied on the
judgment of this Court in which the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the case
of Smt. Sushilabai and others Vs. Union of India through G.M., West
Central Railway, Jabalpur; 2013(2) M.P.H.T. 499 has held in paragraphs
2 and 6 as below :-
"2. Short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a claim
petition for Compensation alleging that on 6-1-08 Raj Prakash
Vyas was travelling with his friend Dhan Singh Lodhi after
purchasing a second class super fast train ticket bearing No.
53975334 on 6-1-08 in Train No. 2621 (Tamil Nadu Express)
from Bhopal to Bina. It was alleged that because of heavy rush
Raj Prakash Vyas and co- passenger were standing near to the
door of general compartment. It was alleged- that near Bina
Railway Station, deceased Raj Prakash fell down from running
train and died on spot. It was prayed that the claim petition be
allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petition was
contested by respondent on various grounds including on the
ground that the deceased was not a victim of an untoward
incident as defined in Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act,
1989. It was alleged that the train passed through Bina Station
without stopping there because the train has no schedule halt at
Bina Station. It was alleged that after passing of the station,
deceased and co-passenger Dhan Singh pulled the alarm chain
and the train stopped near gate No. 308. It was alleged that Dhan
Singh co-passenger got down, but since the train staff set right
the alarm chain apparatus and the train started again, therefore,
deceased got down from the running train, as a result he
sustained injuries and died. On the basis of pleadings of parties,
learned Court below framed the issues and recording the
evidence and dismissed the claim petition, against which present
appeal has been filed.
............
6. In the present case, learned Tribunal has found that the
deceased was bonafide passenger travelling in Tamil Nadu
Express but dismissed the claim on the ground that Train No.
2621, Tamil Nadu Express was not having a schedule stoppage at
Bina and the place of occurrence was immediately after Bina
Railway Station, therefore, learned Tribunal presumed that the
incident must have taken place as described in the statement
recorded by Dhan Singh. The statement was controverted by
Dhan Singh, who has stated that the police did not read out the
statement to him and obtained his signature. Since Dhan Singh
controverted the statement recorded by the police, therefore,
learned Tribunal was not justified in believing on the statement
recorded by the police without getting it to be proved by the
respondent by calling the person, who recorded the statement.
Even if it is assumed that deceased was travelling in a train,
which was not having a schedule halt, then too since it was not a
suicide or attempted suicide by him, self inflicted injury, his own
criminal act, act committed by him in a state of intoxication,
insanity or any natural cause or disease, therefore, learned
Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition filed
by the appellants. In view of this appeal filed by the appellants
stands allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the learned
Tribunal stands set aside with a direction to the respondent to pay
the amount of compensation as prescribed in the death case
alongwith interest from the date of application as prescribed
under the law."
5) Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Jameela Vs. Union of India ; AIR 2010 SC 3705 wherein
in paragraphs 5, 9 and 10, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed :-
5. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred
in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation
under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by
falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the
case of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at
the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from
where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is
admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train
and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of
the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by
it. Secondly, 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 124-A of the
Act.
.....
9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be
reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the
open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is
called by the Railways 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 Railways must fail even after
assuming everything in its favour.
.....
10. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the matter. The
judgment and order of the High Court coming under appeal is set
aside and the judgment and order of the Tribunal is restored. Since a
period of more than 10 years has already elapsed from the date of
the judgment of the Tribunal, the compensation money along with
interest need not be kept in fixed deposits, but should be paid to the
appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. The payment must be
made within 2 months from today."
6) Counsel for the Railway supported the dismissal of the claim
petition.
7) Considered the arguments and perused the record.
8) The Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant on the
ground that as per the statement of the applicant, five persons were
travelling but ticket which has been produced is for four persons only. The
second ground of rejection is that there is no railway stoppage of
Gorakhpur Lokmanya Tilak Express Train at Bina, therefore, untoward
incident was entirely due to the negligence of the passenger. Ex. A/1 is
ticket, Ex. A/2 is application for medical report and Ex. A/3 is M.L.C.
report. Ex. A/4 is the statement of claimant given during enquiry in which
she has submitted that when the train slowed down she tried to get down
from the train but her saree got entangled, therefore, she fell down and
accident was caused. It is not in dispute that train No. 12541 Up
Gorakhpur Lokmanya Tilak Express does not have stoppage at Bina
Railway Station which falls in the state of M.P., therefore, it is suicidal to
get down from running train whether it slows down or not and the
argument that they had asked other passengers or railway officers that
there is stoppage of train at Bina is not proved and cannot be accepted as
no authorized document has been filed which shows that there was indeed
a regular schedule stop of the concerned train at Bina Junction or some
railway officers had informed about the stoppage. The tribunal has labelled
the act of the claimant as a dare evil act meaning unnecessary taking high
risk. The claimant or the Railway has not filed any document by which it
can be established that on the accident day i.e. 1.7.2021, there was a
stoppage of the concerned train at Bina Railway Junction - be it scheduled
stoppage or unscheduled stoppage. The citations relied upon by the
claimant does not help her as the facts are different as mentioned above as
in the case of Sushilabai (Supra) train stopped due to chain pulling and in
the case of Jameela (supra) passenger fell down from a running train,
therefore, the appeal having no force is dismissed and the judgment of
claims tribunal is affirmed
9) Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
