Dismissed

(O&M) Union of India v. Kanta Bashambu etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Nov 2024FAO/2216/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court dismissed the Union of India's challenge against an order awarding Rs.2,00,000 in compensation for the death of Darshan Kumar. Upholding the Railway Claims Tribunal's finding that a ticket was recovered, the court held the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

What did the court decide?

The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal was upheld.

(O&M) Union of India Vs Kanta Bashambu etc. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

[125.19] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

FAO-2216-1999 (O&M) Reserved on 30.08.2024

¶3

Pronounced on 29.11.2024

¶4

Union of India …Appellant Versus

¶5

Kanta Bashambu and others ….Respondents

¶6

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶7

Present: Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate for the appellant-UOI.

¶8

Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the respondents.

¶9

¶10

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶11

[1] This is an appeal directed against order dated: 04.03.1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.

¶12

[2] Union of India is in appeal aggrieved by the order vide which claim petition of the claimants was allowed and compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded to the claimants on account of death of the deceased–Darshan Kumar, in an untoward incident relating to railways. The facts of the case are that on 26.07.1997, the deceased in the process of boarding the bogie, fell and got crushed under the train.

¶13

[3] The respondent-railways contested the claim by filing a written statement claiming that Darshan Kumar was not a bonafide passenger and that the injuries suffered by deceased leading to his death were self-inflicted

¶14

injuries.

¶15

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

FAO-2216-1999 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

[4] The following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

¶19

“1. Whether an untoward incident took place within the meaning of Section 124A read with Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989? OPA

¶20

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of alleged accident? OPA

¶21

3. Whether the respondents are entitled to protection under S.124A Clause (b) and (d) of Railways Act, 1989? OPR

¶22

4. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the applicants entitled to get from the railway administration? OPA

¶23

5. Relief. ”

¶24

[5] Counsel appearing for the Union of India contends that the

¶25

tribunal wrongly allowed the claim of the claimants and awarded Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation holding him a bonafide passenger and a victim of an untoward incident involving railways. He further contends that Darshan Kumar being an older person couldn't maintain balance. He slipped and fell on the track. He died due to his own negligence.

¶26

[6] Counsel for the claimant respondent contested the claim of the railways on the ground that there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. In the jamatalashi, a ticket No.88161, Kurukshetra to Ambala Cantt. was recovered from the deceased. There is no evidence to prove that the deceased had any intent to take his own life. Thus, Tribunal rightly allowed claim petition filed by the claimants.

¶27

[7] I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

¶28

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

FAO-2216-1999 (O&M) -3-

¶30

[8] It has come on record that a ticket was recovered from the clothes of the deceased. The evidence remained unrebutted. Once the claimants have proved on record that there was a ticket recovered, the burden shifted upon the railways to prove otherwise. Nothing was brought on record by the railways. Thus, it is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

¶31

[9] The issue qua untoward incident is no longer res integra. The same has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘ Union of India vs. Rina Devi’, 2019(3) SCC 572. Deceased died of fall from moving train. There is no allegation or evidence that injuries were self inflicted. In view of this issue qua untoward incident also needs to be answered in favour of

¶32

the claimants.

¶33

[10] In light of above, finding no merit, the appeal preferred is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the Tribunal is upheld .

¶34

[11] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off .

¶35

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶36

29.11.2024

¶37

‘R. Sharma'

¶38

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶39

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Union of India v. Kanta Bashambu etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Union of India v. Kanta Bashambu etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurcharan Singh Vs Sukhdev Kaur

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lekh Ram and Ors.

M/S Ifcl Ltd. Vs M/S K and M Hospitalities and Others

Deepika Chhabra and Ors. Vs Union of India

Anil @ Anil Taneja Vs Union of India

Kanta Bashambu etc. Vs UOI