Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India vs Pooja Rani And Ors on 12 January, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004284
123 2024:PHHC:004284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.5562 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.01.2024
Union of India
...Appellant
Versus
Pooja Rani and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Present:- Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Senior Panel Counsel
for the appellant-Union of India.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment as passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'),
whereby the respondents-applicants-claimants (here-in-after to be referred as
'the respondents') have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.(08)
eight lac, along-with interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the date of the
incident till the date of the judgment, on account of the death of Sarabjit
Sandhu in an untoward incident, the appellant-Union of India (here-in-after
to be referred as 'the appellant') has chosen to prefer the instant appeal to
lay challenge to the same.
2. As per the brief factual-matrix culminating in the filing of the
present appeal, the respondents, being the wife, mother, father, son and the
daughter of the above-named deceased respectively, joined hands to file an
application for claiming compensation from the appellant, while averring
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004284
FAO No.5562 of 2023 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:004284
that on 28.09.2022, the deceased, along-with Shatan Jeev, was returning
from Aishbagh to Jalandhar City in Train No.15707-Up and when this
Train reached near the Railway Station at Jalandhar Cantt, he (deceased)
accidentally fell down from the moving train and sustained serious injuries
in this incident and succumbed to the same. The appellant filed its written-
statement and contested the claim of the respondents therein, on various
grounds. Then, the Tribunal framed the issues and both the parties led their
evidence and after hearing their learned counsel, the Tribunal allowed the
Claim Application and granted compensation to the respondents, as already
discussed in the opening para of this judgment.
3. I have heard learned Senior Panel counsel for the appellant-
Union of India in the instant appeal, at the preliminary stage and have also
perused the file carefully.
4. The sole contention, as raised by learned Senior Panel counsel
for the appellant in the present appeal, is that the occurrence/incident in
question had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased
as he had tried to de-board the slow moving Train and hence, the injuries
sustained by him in this incident, which resulted into his death, were 'Self-
Inflicted Injuries', as envisaged under proviso (b), appended to Section
124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') and in these
circumstances, it is explicit that the appellant could not have been saddled
with the liability to pay any compensation to the respondents.
5. However, the afore-raised contention is devoid of any merit
because even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the deceased
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004284
FAO No.5562 of 2023 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:004284
had suffered the injuries due to his own negligence, i.e by his having fallen
down while allegedly trying to de-board the slow moving Train, even then,
these injuries cannot be termed as 'Self-Inflicted Injuries' as contemplated
under proviso (b) to Section 124-A of the Act of 1989, so as to disentitle
the respondents from seeking compensation, because Hon'ble the Supreme
Court has made categoric observations in Union of India versus Rina Devi,
Civil Appeal No .4945 of 2018 decided on 09.05.2018 to the effect that "the
death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a Train would be
an 'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the compensation and will not
fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of
the victim as a contributing factor". The present case is squarely covered
by these observations and in the light thereof, it is held that the respondents
are entitled to and have rightly been granted the compensation.
6. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
judgment under challenge, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity,
infirmity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court.
Resultantly, the appeal in hand, being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
January 12, 2024 JUDGE
pooja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004284
3 of 3
