Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Shankarlal vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2024

Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal

                                                             1
                           IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
                                                  ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
                                               MISC. APPEAL No. 1391 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    SHRI SHANKARLAL S/O CHUNNILAL REGAR,
                                AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: POTTERY
                                GRAM RUPAHELI TAH JAWAD (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    SMT. KAMLI BAI W/O SHRI SHANKARLAL REGAR
                                GRAM RUPAHELI TAH JAWAD (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANTS
                          ( BY SHRI DEVENDRA SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          UNION OF INDIA GENERAL MANAGER WEST CENTRAL
                          RAILWAY (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)

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

                          following:
                                                              ORDER

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at motion stage.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against judgement dated 11.04.2017 passed in Case No.OA-IIU/BPL/2013/0270 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench whereby, appellants' claim petition has been dismissed, seeking

setting aside of impugned judgment and grant of suitable compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, after referring to DRM report as well as other evidence on record, submits that death of deceased comes within the preview of untoward incident as defined in Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989. Further, from documents attached with DRM report, it is clearly established that a general class ticket was found with body of deceased. Therefore, it is also evident that he was a bonafide passenger. It is not proved from evidence on record that deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, Tribunal has wrongly dismissed appellants' claim petition. Hence, on above grounds, it is urged that impugned judgement be set aside and suitable compensation be awarded.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, after referring to para-6 of impugned judgement, submits that death of deceased does not come within the purview of untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act. Further, no legible ticket was found with the body of deceased. It is also urged that from ticket found with body of deceased, it is not clear that deceased was travelling in the train on 13.03.2013. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon M.A.No.565 of 2018 (Smt. Neelam and Others Vs. Union of India) dated 21.02.2023. Thus, from evidence on record, it is not proved that deceased died in untoward incident and it is also not proved that deceased w a s a bonafide passenger. With respect to above, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Kamrunnissa Vs. Union of India (2019) 12 SCC 391, hence, on above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by appellants be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. Perusal of DRM report and documents attached therewith clearly establish that deceased had expired on account of injuries sustained from fall from running train and a general class ticket was also found with body of deceased.

7. Record of the case also reveals that report of DRM and documents attached therewith have not been challenged by Railway Authorities before any other competent forum that findings recorded by enquiry officer are not correct. Hence, respondent/Railways cannot say that the findings recorded in DRM report, along with documents therewith, are not correct. In this Court's opinion, respondent-Union of India is bound by findings recorded by Enquiry Officer and which are part of DRM report.

8. I have also gone through the findings recorded by Tribunal, especially, in para-6. Findings recorded by the Tribunal are against DRM report. So far as date of death is concerned, deceased's body has been found on 23.03.2013. It is evident from enquiry report prepared by Post Commander Railway Security Force dated 03.08.2013 that general class ticket was found with deceased, and it has been purchased on 13.03.2013 from Kota. Therefore, in view of above, it cannot be said that deceased fell from train/expired on 23.03.2013.

9. In view of above, in this Court's opinion, it is clearly established that deceased has expired on account of injuries sustained from fall of train and incident comes within the purview of untoward incident as defined in Section

124-A of Railways Act, 1989. Further, it is also established that deceased was a bonafide passenger.

10. In view of above principle laid down in Kamrunnissa (Supra) and Smt. Neelam (Supra) do not apply to the fact of the case. Hence, appeal filed by appellants is allowed and impugned judgments is set aside and it is held that appellants are entitled to receive compensation.

11. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, in the instant case, incident is dated 13.03.2013 and impugned judgment has been passed on 11.04.2017. Therefore appellants are entitled to receive Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation.

12. Appeal filed by appellants is allowed and disposed off accordingly.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE vai