Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Manisha Solanki vs Union Of India on 8 May, 2024

In The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 8th Of May, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 1409 Of 2021
Between:-
1. Smt. Manisha Solanki W/o Late Sunil
Kumar Solanki, Aged About 36 Years,
2. Yugarth Solanki S/o Late Sunil Kumar Solanki,
Aged About 10 Years, Minor through next
friend natural guardian his mother Smt.
Manisha Solanki the appellant no.1.
3. Shri Gokul Prasad Solanki S/o Late
Nandilal Solanki, Aged About 65 Years,
4. Smt. Kanta Bai W/o Late Nandilal Solanki,
Aged About 61 Years, All R/o Gram Post
Mehat Bada Thana, Tehsil Ashta District-
Sehore (MP)
.....Appellants

(By Shri M. Shafiquallah - Advocate)
And
Union of India Through General Manager
Northen Railway New Delhi (Delhi)
.....Respondent
(By Shri Sandeep Shukla - Advocate)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved On : 03.05.2024
Pronounced On : 08.05.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed under the Railway Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") by the claimants/appellants praying for setting aside the judgment dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as "the RCT") in case No. O.A/IIu/BPL/388/2015, whereby the claim application of the claimants/appellants has been dismissed. The first and second appellant are the wife and son and third and fourth appellants are the parents of the deceased.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the RCT.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts of this case are that on 18.11.2013, the deceased Sunil Kumar Solanki had purchased a AC-III ticket under Military Warrant bearing no.19AA461838 from ex Hisar to New Delhi for travelling along with his colleague Ramu by Gorakhdham Express. Since Bramhaputra Express by which he had to travel to Allahabad was scheduled to depart from Old Delhi. The deceased along with co-traveller Ramu @ Ramkumar boarded EMU local train to travel from New Delhi to Old Delhi. There was heavy rush in EMU local train, they were forced to travel by standing near the door of the coach, that owing to sudden jerk and push off by passengers, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the running train, as a result, he suffered injuries and he was taken to Trauma Centre Metkaaf Road Delhi, where during the course of treatment, succumbed to the injuries on 19.11.2013. The alleged incident was informed by Station Master, Old Delhi to GRP (Government Railway Police)/Old Delhi and registered a case vide Merg No.DDMO23/1/2013. The first and second claimants are the wife and son and the third and fourth claimants are the parents of the deceased, they filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs Rupees) before the RCT at Bhopal on account of the death of the deceased in an "untoward incident" occurred on 18.11.2013 as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989.

4. The respondent Railway filed written statement through Deputy Chief Commercial Manager and denied all the averments in the claim petition,

further denied that the alleged incident occurred due to "untoward incident"

as defined in 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989 and further denied that the alleged incident does not come within the definition of "untoward incident"

as defined in 123(c)(2) r/w 124-A of the Railways Act, further denied that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger on the date of the alleged incident.

5. In view of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train in question at the time of accident?

2. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to the said alleged untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the respondent Railway Administration is protected under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants?

4. Whether the appellants are the legal dependent of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation, if any, granted ? who else are the dependents?

5. Relief and cost ?

6. In order to establish the claim of the applicants at the time of inquiry, Manisha Solanki wife of the deceased filed an affidavit examined as PW-1 and cross-examined by respondent's counsel and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-18 on behalf of the claimants and Shri Jungbahadur Singh, Assistant Sub-

Inspector (Railway Police Force) filed an affidavit examined as RW-1 and cross-examined by appellant's counsel and got marked Ex.R-1 (DRM report) on behalf of the respondent.

7. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 and placing reliance on Ex. A-1 to A-18 and Ex.-R-1 (DRM report), the learned Claims Tribunal came

to a conclusion that the death of the deceased did not occur due to fall from the train is in an "untoward incident" and, therefore, it does not come under the category of an "untoward incident" and further observed that the deceased was neither a bonafide passenger nor it was a case of fall from the train, further observed that the alleged incident is a case of "self-inflicted" injury and dismissed the claim petition.

8. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the judgement dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation instead of dismissing the claim application. Further would submit that the deceased Sunil Kumar Solanki along with his colleague Ramkumar boarded EMU local train and due to heavy crowed in the compartment and jolting of the train, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the running train, which was stated by co- passenger Ramkumar whose statement was recorded by Out Post Railway Police on 19.11.2013 at 2:00 am. Further would submit that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased while crossing the railway line through parcel carrying luggage route hit by unknown train and sustained injuries and died, is erroneous, untenable and contrary to the statement of Ramkumar , who was co-passenger travelling along with him in the same compartment and his statement (Ex.A-11) was recorded by railway police immediately after the incident. Further would submit that the accident occurred on 18.11.2013 and the claimants filed an application in the year 2015. After filing of the claim petition, belatedly nearly after 23 months of the incident, the DRM report was submitted to the Senior Divisional Commercial

Manager and delay in intimation in DRM inquiry is silence about the specifics the accident makes the DRM report of no consequence. Further would submit the Railway authority did not complete the investigation within a period of 60 days from the date of incident complying the sub-clause 2 of Rule 6 of the Railways Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents), Rules, 2020. Conveniently, they filed the DRM report without any basis and the observations made by the learned Tribunal are improper and incorrect and the learned Tribunal should not have rendered its personal opinion while adjudicating the claim under the present Statute. Since the provisions of compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not narrow and technical one, the observations of the learned Tribunal are not sustainable and are required to be set-aside, therefore, the accident in question clearly falls under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act of 1989, hence, the claimants would be entitled to compensation and the Railway Administration would be liable to pay compensation.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned order has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, the claim petition filed by the appellants was rightly dismissed, further would submit that the learned Tribunal considered the evidence brought on record in a right perspective and came to a conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to his own negligence and carelessness while crossing the railway line through parcel carrying luggage route and caused the alleged incident is a case of "self inflicted injury" and not due to accidental fallen from the running train in an "untoward incident". Further would submit that the findings of learned Tribunal based on sound reasoning and it does not require

any interference by this Court, thus, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. Now the question arises for determination in the instant appeal is "as to whether the death of the deceased in the aforesaid manner is covered by Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railway Act or not ?

12. In order to assess the sustainability of the said finding, it is necessary to refer to Chapter-XIII of the Railways Act, 1989, which sets out the liability of the Railway Administration for death and injury causes to the passengers due to accident.

"Accident" is defined as an accident of the nature described in section 124 of the Act, "untoward incident" is another term which is defined in the said Chapter and it includes the accidental falling of any passenger from any train carrying passengers.

Section 124 determines as under:

"Extent of liability: When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, 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 the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident."

13. Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989, reads thus :

"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.--When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, 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 the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'passenger' includes--

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."

14. "Untoward incident" has been defined under section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 which read as under: -

"123(c) - "untoward incident ''means -

1. (i). the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-

section (1) of section 3 of the terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1997 (28 of 1987):- or

(ii)The making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii)The indulging in rioting shoot-out or arson, by any person in or any train carrying passengers, or in waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station, or, (2) The accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."

15. A plain reading of the above referred definitions of an "untoward incident" includes the accidental fallen of any passenger from the train carrying passengers, the facts, which are not in dispute, are that the deceased was a bonafide passenger while travelling with a valid ticket under Ex.A-2 from Hisar to Allahabad, the Railway authority took a plea that he died while crossing the railway line through parcel carrying luggage route hit by unknown train and suffered injuries and subsequently, while taking treatment succumbed to the injuries. In contrary, the deceased was died while travelling in EMU local train from new Delhi to Old Delhi under the valid journey ticket, the only issue is "whether fall of the deceased was due to his own negligence or unexpectedly fallen from the running train, the learned Tribunal heavily relied on the evidence of RW-1. Admittedly, there was an eye witness i.e. Ramkumar who was the co-passenger travelling along with the deceased, his statements was recorded by police Out Post Railway Station, in which, he stated that the deceased was standing in front of him in the same coach and due to jerk and pull and push off by the passengers, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the running train when the train reached to Old Delhi railway station and the said statement marked as Ex.A-11, the learned Tribunal ignoring the said evidence and opined that the alleged incident is a case of "self inflicted injury" does not fall under the expression of "untoward incident". Admittedly, it is established that the deceased was a bonafide

passenger and fallen from the running train, it would be covered as an "untoward incident". The incident happened on 18.11.2013 and the claim application filed in the year 2015. Till filing of the claim petition, the Railway Police did not submit any report to the Railway authority. In order to overcome the liability, they started investigation and filed DRM report (Ex.R1) dated 15.10.2015, in which, he has stated that the incident happened due to his own negligence and carelessness while crossing the railway line through parcel carrying luggage route and he was hit by unknown train for which the deceased himself fully responsible for the alleged incident as it is the case of "self inflicted injury" and does not fall under the definition of an "untoward incident". The DRM report is contrary to the statement of Ramkumar marked as Ex.A-11, whose statement was recorded on 19.11.2013 and after twenty three months from the date of accident Ex.R-1 DRM report dated 13.10.2015 submitted. The reasons mentioned in para-9 of the impugned judgment that the deceased required to board the train Delhi- Allahabad, Special Train from the platform no.13, reaching from platform no.6 to platform no.13, instead of going by the foot over bridge (FOB), the deceased opted to walk through parcel carriage luggage route at the end of East Side of platform of Delhi Railway Station towards Delhi Shahdara end and in the process got hit by unknown train. The findings of DRM report cannot be given much weight. The finding of the learned Tribunal in para-9 contrary to the statement of Ramkumar Ex.A-11 who is the best person speak about the incident. In this regard, it is also worthwhile to note the DRM proceedings itself were conducted belatedly i.e., nearly after 23 months of the incident and the report was filed on 13.10.2015 and such the claim ought not to have been denied on this count. The aspect of belated filing/preparation of DRM report had come up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalandi Charan

Sahoo Vs. General Manage, South Eastern Central Railway 1,, wherein while holding the appellants entitled to compensation, it was observed as under:

"3. Though Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the Appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.2.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.4.2009....

5. ......Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the Appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable Under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989........"

16. Another decision in Bhola Vs. Union of India2, has held delay in initiation of DRM inquiry to be fatal to the facts of the case, as what needs to be essentially gathered is what happened on the date of accident. In this captioned case, it has been opined in para-4 and 5 are as follows :

4. The claim petition was filed on 27.07.2014, the DRM Inquiry was initiated thereafter and a report was filed 7 months later.

The delay in initiating an inquiry is fatal to the facts of the case because what essentially needs to be gathered is what happened on the date of accident. The medical reports and the police records show that an accident happened on 08.10.2012 and the cause of the accident was, the appellant having been fallen from a moving train. The DRM Report does not address any of these aspects. On the contrary it says that since no ticket was produced to support the claim of the appellant, of him being a bona fide passenger, therefore by conjecture, he could have well suffered a self-inflicted injury while crossing the railway tracks. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager,

1 2019 (12) SCC 387 2 (2018) SCC Online Del 13486

South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 5608/2017.

5. The delay in intimation of the DRM Inquiry, the silence about the specifics of the accident makes the DRM Report of no consequence.

17. In alike facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the above judgment, placing the DRM report which was filed after period of 23 months, in contrary to sub rule (2) of the Rule 6 of Railways Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents), Rules, 2020 as such the DRM report is of no avail and apart from Ex.A-10 death summary and the inquest report Ex.A-5 and any other proceedings do not disclose that the deceased while crossing the railway line through parcel carrying luggage route and he was hit by unknown train and causes the accident. In the absence of above material aspects, the evidence of RW-1 is of no value and planted for the purpose of this case to overcome the liability is nothing but afterthought and his evidence is of no use and cannot be taken into consideration.

18. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakar Vijayakumar, 3

while considering the definition of "untoward incident" with respect to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in section 123(c) of the Act of 1989, has observed that if we attach a restrictive meaning to the said expression, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accident and, therefore, a purposive and not literal interpretation should be given to the said expression. Paragraph-11 and 14 of the said decision is usually quoted as under:-

3 2008 ACJ 1895

11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one.......

14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act.

Hence, in our opinion, the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.

19. In the light of the above judgment, the accident in which Sunil Kumar Solanki is clearly not covered by proviso to section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124-A of the Act of 1989. Hence this Court is of the opinion in the present case is clearly covered by main body of section 124-A of the Railways Act not its proviso. Therefore, in my view as can be seen from the statement of Ramkumar Ex.A-11 and police papers i.e. inquest

report and death summary i.e. Ex.A-5 and A-10 covered by under section 124-A and 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989 is an "untoward incident" as bonafide passenger. The claimants would be entitled to compensation.

20. Another decision reported in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi4, the Apex Court in para 17 has observed as under:- ,

"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a benafide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

21. A decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra), wherein in para-4 reads as thus:

".............we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs.4 lakhs."

4 2018 ACJ 1441(SC)

22. We are aware the prevailing situation that the passengers are provided in between one platform to another platform and through such passages crossing through railway track in the end of platform are not prevented or not closed by the railway authorities and when such crossing are freely permitted by railway authorities to the passengers with heavy luggage then there is no reason whatsoever to blame the passengers for the purpose of declining the benefit of compensation under the provisions of the Railway Act. The railway authority may take a defence with over bridges made available for the uses of the passengers. For instance, the Delhi Railway Station over bridge is very high and the passengers could not go with heavy luggage and could not be in a position to claim the steps and such practical difficulties are also to be considered by the railway authorities. In the instant case, RW-1 stated that the deceased while crossing the railway track through parcel carrying luggage route and hit by unknown train and died even then the railway authority cannot escape from the liability and the railway authorities are permitted to cross the railway track in the end of platform for the purpose of reaching another platform those who are having heavy luggage. This exactly is the reality and truth prevailing. Such being the responsibility of law enforcing officials, on what basis a poor passenger can be blamed for crossing the railway track unintentionally and by mistake in order to reach the other platform thus, the Railway Authorities and the Railway Police are completely responsible and accountable for not effectively preventing such illegal activities. The situations prevailing in railway stations across the country cannot be neglected by courts and the court cannot shut its eyes with reference to the truth as well as circumstances. The Railway Authority after allowing the passengers freely to cross the railway track to reach other platforms and in case of any "untoward incident", blaming the passengers, can never be accepted by courts and all those officials including the police

official and the railway are held accountable in such circumstances. The Courts are bound to adopt doctrine of liberal interpretation, so as to ensure that the concept of social justice prevail and livelihood of dependents who lost their near and deer and the breadwinner are saved, therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 09.02.2021 is not sustainable and the appellants are entitled to claim compensation on either way if the deceased fallen from the running train or while crossing the railway track through parcel carrying luggage route hit by unknown train fall under the expression of "untoward incident".

23. Following the above judgments read together, the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the railway could not able to prove the same with an irretrievable evidence and it is a case of fallen down from the running train. The Railway could not even able to establish that the "untoward incident"

occurred while crossing the railway line in negligent manner with an intention, in such case "untoward incident" was established, deceased was admittedly a bondfide passenger by holding a valid travel ticket which is not in dispute by the Railway, thus in the absence of any criminal act and the mens rea is established, the welfare scheme of compensation cannot be denied to the victims/appellants. The deceased was working in military and he visualised arrival and departure of the train, the finding of the learned Railway Tribunal that the deceased crossing the railway track through parcel carrying luggage route and he was hit by unknown train and caused the accident which is contrary to the statements of two colleagues R.V.Raju and Mithlesh Kumar, whose statements were recorded by the police, they too have stated that the injured was fallen from the running train and when they came there the deceased was at platform no.6, therefore, the evidence of RW-1 is of no value, the deceased standing at the door in front of him, due to jerk and

pull and push off by the passengers he fallen from the running train at the platform no.6. The said fact stated by co-passenger by name Ramkumar and his statement recorded by the police on the day of incident which is primarily taken into consideration that the deceased fallen from the running train between the platform no.6 and the track and sustained injuries and died, therefore, the accident in question comes under Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. The accidental falling of the passenger from the running train carrying the passengers is governed by "untoward incident", therefore, in my opinion the claim made by the appellants/dependents of the deceased is fully covered under provisions of Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 as the deceased who was bonafine passenger and died in the "untoward incident".

24. In view of the above discussion, the observation of the learned Tribunal contained in the impugned order and the contents of the Railway cannot be sustained and, therefore, in view of that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who died in the an "untoward incident", and the appellants are entitled for compensation under Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 and the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in case no.O.A/IIu/BPL/388/2015, rejecting the claim of compensation by the respondent/Railway on account of death of the deceased does not fall under the expression of "untoward incident" dated 18.11.2013 is hereby set-aside. The appellants would be entitled to sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakh Rupees) as compensation in accordance with the prevailing law.

25. Accordingly, and as per the above discussion, this appeal is, thus, allowed and set-aside the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No.O.A/IIu/BPL/388/2015, consequently, the claim application is allowed. The appellants are entitled compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only). The

amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent/railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. No order as costs.

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J rk.

In The High Court of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur Before Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana On The 8th Of May, 2024

Misc. Appeal No. 1409 Of 2021

Between:-

1. Smt. Manisha Solanki W/o Late Sunil Kumar Solanki, Aged About 36 Years,

2. Yugarth Solanki S/o Late Sunil Kumar Solanki, Aged About 10 Years, Minor through next friend natural guardian his mother Smt. Manisha Solanki the appellant no.1.