Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Krishna Manglani vs Union Of India on 4 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1428 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. KRISHNA MANGLANI W/O SHYAMLAL
MANGLANI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
NOTHING R/O UDAJI KI PAIGA, MEWATI MOHALLA
JAN AKGAN J ROAD, MEWATI MOHALLA, LASKAR
GWALIOUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER
NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY ALLAHABAD (UTTAR
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAV - ADVOCATE FOR UNION OF INDIA)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
T his miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the award dated
23.12.2022 in Claim case no.OA-IIu/BPL/118/2021 by Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal whereby the application for compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- regarding death of 32 year old Latika @ Lata at Gwalior Railway
Station on 02.11.2019 in an untoward incident has been rejected.
2 . Facts as stated in application before the Tribunal are that the
deceased-Latika @ Lata died in a Railway untoward incident occurred on
02.11.2019. When she was alighting from the train after dropping her old
paternal aunt (Rekha Ahuja) by keeping their articles in the bogie. At that
moment all of sudden without whistling the train has started and the deceased
fell down from the train and received injury and thereafter died. At that time the
deceased was holding a valid platform ticket. The death of the deceased was
occurred in a Railway untoward incident being a bonafide passenger. The
appellants who is the mother of the deceased, being a dependent on her. She
filed claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking
compensation of Rs.8 Lacs. The respondent filed the reply of the application
alongwith DRM Report and denied the averment made therein. But admitted the
facts that the deceased was died in a train accident being fell down from the
running train but pleaded that deceased was alighting from the running train the
said act is a negligent act. Therefore he was own responsible for her death.
Therefore the claimants is not entitled for any compensation. Further pleaded
that as the deceased was not possess the traveling ticket but possess the
platform ticket. Therefore she was not the bonafide passenger of the train. In
support of her claim application the appellant examined herself. The respondent
has not examined any witness to prove its pleading.
3. Tribunal after conclusion of the trial and hearing argument on it,
dismissed the claim application of the appellants by coming to the wrong
conclusion that deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train and also
came to the wrong conclusion that the death of the deceased was also not
occurred in the Railway untoward incident and dismissed the claim application
of the appellants.
4. Heard.
5. Perused the record.
6. Appreciating the evidence, Tribunal recorded the findings that
deceased Latika was holding only platform ticket. Accordingly, she was not
entitled to enter the garage and does not fall within the category of bonafide
passenger and incident does not come under the definition of untoward
incident, therefore, appellant is not entitled to compensation. Death at platform
of Railway Station, Gwalior is not in dispute. Only question to be considered is
whether a platform ticket holder alighting from the coach of Railway is entitled
to claim compensation under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987.
7. The act of deceased to enter the coach on the strength of platform
ticket does not fall within the purview of proviso 2 Section 123(c) of Railways
Act, 1989. The argument on behalf of respondents on the strength of Clause
302(c) and Clause 347 of Chapter III of Indian Railways Commercial Manual
Volume 1 does not level the deceased as Commercial Act. Accordingly, the
reasons for rejecting the application is not sustainable. Findings of Tribunal
recorded in para-13 of the judgment is set aside and accordingly findings
regarding issue no.3, 4 and 5 are also set aside. This appeal is allowed and
judgment date 23.12.2022 is set aside.
8. In the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2018 (3) ACCD
1339 (SC) it is held that :-
"Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident
has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect
to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as
provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than
unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two
amounts has to be given."
9. As per Rule 4 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident
(Compensation) Rules, 1990, a total compensation payable under Rule 3 shall in
no case exceed Rs.8,00,000/- in respect of any one person. So in light of Rina
Devi (supra) a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- is awarded in favour of
appellant/applicant. The compensation shall be disbursed as per the Scheme.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
HK
