Allowed

Sarita and Others v. Union of India

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2024FAO/418/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal award rejecting compensation for the death of a passenger. The Court held that the strict liability principle under Section 124A of the Railways Act applies, and the absence of a ticket does not negate the claim if the claimant discharges the initial burden by proving the deceased was travelling.

What did the court decide?

Claimants held entitled to compensation as per the schedule.

Sarita and Others Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

[257] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

FAO-41 8 -2021 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 08.11.2024

Sarita an d others

…Appellants

versus

Union of India ….Respondent

¶7

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶8

Present: Mr. Ujwal Mittal, Advocate f or the appellants. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-UOI.

¶9

¶10

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶11

[1] Present appeal is directed a g ainst the Award dated 30.09.2 0 20 passed b y the Railway Claims Tribunal, C handigarh whereby, claim peti t ion filed by t he claimants, seeking compen s ation on account of death of H ar Kishor in untoward incident relating to ra i lway stands rejected.

¶12

[2] The claimants filed clai m petition seeking compensat i on, claiming t hat the deceased was working a t a factory in Kurukshetra. In o r der to traval t o his native place, he was to b o ard a train from Ambala Cant t . to Moradab a d. After purchasing ticket, whi l e he was in process of boarding the train, he a long with co-passengers fell do w n between Railway Station Ke s ari and Bara r a. The 03 passengers fell down and all of them died.

¶13

[3] The claim petition was resi s ted by the Railways, claiming t hat there was no proof that the deceased pass e ngers were holding valid ticket s

¶14

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -2-

¶16

and that they died in an untoward inc i dent relating to railways. It w as further c l aimed that from a bag found n ear the body of the deceased, his identity c ard, clothes and a fair amo u nt of money i.e. Rs.2290/- w as recovere d . Since the money was reco v ered, there was no reason for the ticket to d isappear.

¶17

[4] On the basis of the pleading s of the parties, the following is s ues were fra m ed:-

¶18

“1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of t r ain at the time of incident ?

¶19

2. Whether the alleged i n cident is covered within the a m bit of Section 123(C) r ead with Section 124-A of the Railways Act?

¶20

3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased?

¶21

4. Relief. ”

¶22

[5] The learned Tribunal held t h at the ticket was neither recov e red nor prod u ced by the claimants hence, t h e deceased cannot be held to b e a bonafide passengers. Further, learned T ribunal held that there having no evidence t o prove the untoward incident a nd the body having sustained c r ush injuries a n d multiple abrasions. It cannot be a case of fall from the train. [6] Counsel for the appellants s u bmits that claimant-Sarita appe a red before th e learned Tribunal. Her testimo n y is AW-1 wherein she stated t h at

¶23

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -3-

¶25

she recei v ed a call from her husband (t h e deceased-Har Kishor), who t old her that h e along with Bharat have purc h ased their separate tickets and are travelling from Ambala Cantt. to Morad a bad. He submits that the afore s aid statemen t stands corroborated by the fac t that Bharat also died in the s a me incident a nd ticket was recovered from h i s pocket, which is evident from the contents o f the investigation report con d ucted by the Divisional Mana g er, which w a s appended along with the writ t en statement by the railways it s elf. He furth e r submits that keeping in view t hat 03 co-passengers fell toget h er, its not a c ase of any voluntary act, leadin g to the loss of life of the decea s ed. Further r e liance is being placed upon ‘Union of India versus Rina Devi’, 2018(3) RCR (Civil), 40 .

¶26

[7] Per contra, counsel for the respondent-UOI submits that f r om the injuri e s suffered by the deceased, it i s evident that it is not a case of fall from the train. There being no ticket pr o duced. Its not a case of dece a sed being bo n afide passenger and thus lear n ed Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim pet i tion.

¶27

[8] I have heard counsel for t h e parties and have carefully g o ne through t h e records of the case. [9] Section 124A deals with co m pensation on account of unto w ard incident. The said provision came on the statute by way of Rail w ays Amendm e nt Act, 28 of 1994. Supreme C o urt in the case of Rathi Menon vs. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -4-

¶29

Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714 spelli n g out the purpose and the impo r t of the provi s ion observed as under:

¶30

“13. Appellant's claim for the c ompensation was based on Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for sh o rt "the Act"). The said Section itself was introduced as per Railway (Amendment) Act 28 of 1994. The Se c tion provided for awarding compensa t ion to victims of any "untoward inci d ent" which occurs in the course of working of a railway. The expres s ion "untoward incident" was alien t o Railway Act before Parliament inserted such an expression in the statut e as per the Amendment Act 28 of 1 9 94. Prior to it the Railways could h ave granted compensation only to the victims of "Accident". As the d e finition of accident in the Act did not embrace instances of other type s of disasters which frequently happ e ned during train journeys, the Parli a ment in its wisdom, decision to ins e rt a new category of disasters, both m an-made and otherwise, to be the ca u ses of action for claiming compensation.

¶31

14. It was in compliance of t h e aforesaid intention of the Parlia m ent that the category "untoward i n cident" was included by definin g its contours in section 123 of the A c t. The Sections Page 4 of 14 consis t s of two segments. In the first segm e nt acts such as terrorists acts, riotous attacks, robbery and decoity whi c h visit the passengers in the train as w ell as those who wait within the pre c incts of Railway Station are include d . In the second segment, which is the r elevant part for the purpose of this c ase, is included "the accidental fallin g of any passenger from a train carr y ing passengers."

¶32

15. Now we have to see Secti o n 124A which is the provision impo s ing liability on the Railway Administ r ation to pay compensation to the victims of untoward incidents. Its provis o excuses from its purview persons w ho committed or attempted to comm i t suicide, persons who inflicted injur y by self, and those who committed c riminal act or acts done in a stat e of intoxication or insanity and also t he cases affected by any natural cau s e of disease etc. After excluding such persons and cases, Section 124A ca n be read thus :

¶33

"When in the course of working a railway an untoward inciden t

¶34

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -5-

¶36

occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the p art of the railway administration suc h as would entitle a passenger , who has been injured or the depen d ent of a passenger who has been killed, to maintain an action and recover damages in res p ect thereof, the railway administr a tion shall, notwithstanding a n ything contained in any other law , be liable to pay compensatio n 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 s u ch untoward incident."

¶37

[10] Doctrine of strict liability was applied to adjudicate the cla i ms arising o u t of Section 124A of 1989 Ac t by Supreme Court in the cas e of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, (2008) 9 SCC 527 . Rejecting the plea of ‘no fault on part of the railways’ Apex c o urt observed as under:-

¶38

“17. Section 124A lays down s trict liability or no fault liability in c ase of railway accidents. Hence, if a c ase comes within the purview of Se c tion 124A it is wholly irrelevant as to w ho was at fault. 18. The theory of strict liabili t y for hazardous activities can be sa i d to have originated from the historic judgment of Blackburn, J. of the Br i tish High Court in Rylands v. Fletche r , 1866 LRI Ex 265. xxxx

¶39

55. In view of the above, we a re of the opinion that the submission of learned counsel for the appella n t there was no fault on the part o f the Railways, or that there was con t ributory negligence, is based on a t otal misconception and hence has to be rejected.”

¶40

[11] The exceptions carved out u n der the proviso attached to Sec t ion 124A we r e interpreted by Supreme Cour t in the case of Jameela and others vs. Union of India, 2010 AIR SC 3705 . E xplaining the meaning of the

¶41

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -6-

¶43

expressio n ‘his own criminal act’, Supre m e Court observed as under:-

¶44

“7. ……. It is now to be see n , that under section 124A the liabili t y to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or defau l t on the part of the railway administr a tion. But the proviso to the section s ays that the railway administratio n would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of th e passenger or injury to him was ca u sed due to any of the reasons enumer a ted in clauses (a) to (e).

¶45

8. Coming back to the case i n hand, it is not the case of the Rai l way that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of s elfinflicted injury. It is also not the c ase that he died due to his own cri m inal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died d u e to any natural cause or disease. H i s falling down from the train was, t hus, clearly accidental.

¶46

9. The manner in which the a ccident is sought to be reconstructe d by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itse lf as negligence. Now negligence of t h is kind which is not very uncommo n on Indian trains is not the same thi n g as a criminal act mentioned in cl a use (c) to the proviso to section 124 A . A criminal act envisaged under cl a use (c) must have an element of mali c ious intent or mens rea. Standing a t the open doors of the compartment o f a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anyt h ing else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway m u st fail even after assuming everythin g in its favour.”

¶47

[12] Principal Bench Railway C laims Tribunal submitted be f ore

¶48

Apex Co u rt seeking clarification on th e following four issues repeat e dly arising b e fore the Tribunal:-

¶49

“(i) Quantum of compensation : It is stated that there is a confli c t in the decisions in Rathi Menon (su p ra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (su p ra) which needs clarification. We ha v e already taken note of this issue.

¶50

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -7-

¶52

(ii) Definition of passenger : W hether any person found dead nea r the track on Railway Precincts can b e held to be a bona fide passenge r for maintainability of a claim for c o mpensation in absence of recovery o f a ticket from his body. Conflicting d ecisions of Andhra Pradesh High C o urt in Agam Shanthamma v. Union of India, (2004) 1 ACJ 713; Kerala H igh Court in Union of India v. Leelamma, 2009 (1) KLT 914 ; Bombay H igh Court (Nagpur Bench) in Union of India v. Surekha, (2011) ACJ 1845; Ramdhan v. Union of India, (2009) ACJ 2487; & Union of India v. Nandabai, (2016) ACJ 411 ; C a lcutta High Court in Asharani Das v. Union of India, 2009 (2) CalLT 467 ; and Madhya Pradesh High Cou r t in Raj Kumari v. Union of India, (1993) ACJ 846 are required t o be resolved on this subject.

¶53

(iii) The concept of self inflicted injury : Whether attempt of ge t ting into or getting down a moving tr a in resulting in an accident was a ca s e of 'self inflicted injury' so as not to entitle to any compensation or no s uch concept could not apply under th e scheme of law which casts strict lia b ility to pay Page 7 of 14 compensatio n by the Railway under Sections 124 and 124A. In this regard views of th e High Courts of Kerala in Joseph PT v. Union of India, AIR 2014 Kerala (12), Bombay in Pushpa v. Union of India, (2017) III ACC 799 (Bom) and Delhi in Shayam Narayan v. Union of India, (2018) ACJ 702 , may appear to be against the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 577 : (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela v. Union of India, 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 362 : (2010) 12 SCC 443. (iv) Award of interest . The Act is silent about the interest. In ThazhathePurayil Sarabi v. Union of India, (2010) 1 TAC 420 SC , this Court held that the CPC could b e invoked and interest awarded at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of appli c ation till the date of award and 9% p.a. interest from the date of award till the date of payment. In Mohamadi v. Union of India, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 692 : (2011) ACJ 2356 , intere s t at the rate of 9% was awarded wi t hout any difference between the da t e of application and date of award or f or subsequent award.”

¶54

[13]

¶55

Deciding the reference, in th e case of Union of India vs. Rina

¶56

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -8-

¶58

Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 , the Apex Court f ramed the following four issue s :-

¶59

“15. We now proceed to deal w ith the following issues seriatim: (i) Whether the q u antum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/inc i dent or on the date of order awar d ing compensation;

¶60

(ii) Whether princi p le of strict liability applies; (iii) Whether prese n ce of a body near the railway tra c k is enough to maintain a claim.

¶61

(iv) Rate of interest . ”

¶62

[14] The aforesaid issues have b e en answered as under:

¶63

19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payabl e as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be consid e red reasonable from time to time o n the same pattern as in accident c l aim cases. If the amount so calculate d is less than the amount prescribed a s on the date of the award of the T r ibunal, the claimant will be entitle d to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards w h ich have already become final and where limitation for challenging s uch awards has expired, this orde r will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon [Rathi Men o n v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 7 1 4, para 30 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1311] and Kalandi Charan Sahoo [Kalan d i Charan Sahoo v. South-East Ce n tral Railways, (2019) 12 SCC 387 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1638] st a nds explained accordingly. The four- J udge Bench judgment in Pratap Na r ain Singh Deo [Pratap Narain Sing h Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 S CC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52] hol d s the field on the subject and squ a rely applies to the present situation. C ompensation as applicable on the da t e of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effe c t to the mandate of beneficial legisla t ion, if compensation as provided o n the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount w ith interest, the higher of the two am o unts has to be given.

¶64

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

FAO-418-2021 (O&M)

¶66

-9-

¶67

25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of “ s elfinflicted injury” would require in t ention to inflict such injury and not m ere negligence of any particular deg r ee. Doing so would amount to invo k ing the principle of contributory neg l igence which cannot be done in the c ase of liability based on “no fault th e ory”. We may in this connection ref e r to the judgment of this Court in U nited India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S unil Kumar [United India Insurance C o. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 S CC 398 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale 652] laying down that plea of negligence of the victim c annot be allowed in claim based on “no fault theory” under Section 1 6 3-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 9 88. Accordingly, we hold that death o r injury in the course of boarding o r deboarding a train will be an “unt o ward incident” entitling a victim t o the compensation and will not fall u n der the proviso to Section 124-A m e rely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.

¶68

29. We thus hold that mere pr e sence of a body on the railway pre m ises will not be conclusive to hold t h at injured or deceased was a bona f ide passenger for which claim fo r compensation could be maintai n ed. However, mere absence of ticke t 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 b e discharged by filing an affidavit o f the relevant facts and burden will th e n shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown o r 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 s tand explained accordingly.

¶69

Re : (iv) Rate of interest

¶70

30. As already observed, thou g h this Court in ThazhathePurayil Sa r abi [ThazhathePurayil Sarabi v. Uni o n of India, (2009) 7 SCC 372 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 133 : (2009) 3 SCC ( C ri) 408 : 2010 TAC 420] held that ra t e of interest has to be @ 6% from t h e date of application till the date o f the award and 9% thereafter and 9 % rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi [Mohamadi v. Union of India, (2019 ) 12 SCC 389 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 19] , rate of interest has to be reason a ble rate on a par with accident claim cases. We are of the view that in abs e nce of any specific statutory provisio n , interest can be awarded from the d a te

¶71

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶72

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -10-

¶73

of accident itself when the liabili ty of the Railways arises up to the da t e of payment, without any difference i n the stages. Legal position in this re g ard is on a par with the cases of acci d ent claims under the Motor Vehicles A ct, 1988. Conflicting views stand res o lved in this manner.

¶74

[15] The test laid down in Rina Devi’s case (supra) stands reiter a ted by Supre m e Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.8605 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.32962 of 2018) observin g as under:-

¶75

“13. …..In Rina Devi (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this C o urt considered the question of the pa r ty on which the burden Page 10 of 14 of proof will lie in cases where the b ody of the deceased is found on rai l way premises. This Court held that th e initial burden would be on the clai m ant, which could be discharged by fili n g an affidavit of the relevant facts. O nce the claimant did so, the bur de n would then shift to the Rail w ays. Significantly, it also held that t h e mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the dec e ased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling o f the Court is reproduced below:

¶76

"29. We thus hold that m ere presence of a body on the rai l way premises will not be con c lusive to hold that injured or dece a sed was a bona fide passenge r for which claim for compensation c o uld 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 o n the facts shown or the atten d ing circumstances. This will have t o be dealt with from case to c a se on the basis of facts found. The l e gal position in this regard wil l stand explained accordingly."

¶77

(emphasis supp l ied)

¶78

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -11-

¶80

14. In the present cas e , the appellant had duly filed an affi d avit stating the facts and a dv erting to the report arising from the investigation conducted b y the respondent, which showed tha t the deceased was travelling o n the train and that his death was ca u sed by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of proof t hen shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its bur d en. Therefore, the presumpti o n that the deceased was a bona f ide passenger on the train in q uestion was not rebutted. xxxx

¶81

18. The decision in Rina Devi (supra) holds as follows o n the

¶82

aspect of compensation:-

¶83

"19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as appli c able on the date of the accident w ith interest as may be considered reasonable from time to t ime on the same patt e rn as in accident claim cases. I f the amount so calcula t ed is less than the amount prescribe d as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to high e r of the two amounts. This order wil l not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation f o r challenging such awards has exp i red, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming c o nflict in Rathi Menon [Rathi Meno n v. Union of India, ( 2 001) 3 SCC 714, para 30 : 2001 S CC (Cri) 1311] and K alandi Charan Sahoo [Kalandi Ch a ran Sahoo v. South-Ea s t Central Railways, (2019) 12 SCC 387 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1638] stands explained accordi n gly. The fourJudge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh D eo [Pratap Narain Si n gh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 S CC 289 : 1976 SCC (L &S) 52] holds the field on the su b ject and squarely appli e s to the present situation. Compens a tion as applicable on t he date of the accident has to be given with reasonable in t erest and to give effect to the manda t e of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised

¶84

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶85

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -12-

¶86

amount with inter e st, the higher of the two amounts h a s to be given."

¶87

The decision in Rina Devi (supra) has subsequently been followed in Union of India v. Radha Yadav (2019) 3 SCC 410 and in Kamukayi and others v. Union of India and Others 2023 SCC Online SC 642.

¶88

19. In Rina Devi (supra), this Court held that the clai m ant would be entitled to inter e st from the date of the accident an d , in case the amount so calcul a ted is less than the amount prescribe d as on the date of the grant o f compensation, the claimant woul d be entitled to the higher of t h e two amounts. The principle which has been laid down in Rina Devi (supra) serves a salutary pur p ose. This was noticed in the d e cision in Radha Yadav (supra ) whe r e it was observed that "the idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent p ossible".

¶89

[16] In view of above, the following proposition can be culled :-

¶90

(i) Railway is liable to pa y to an injured passenger or to the dependants of a passenge r killed in an untoward incident invol v ing railways. The passenger f or the purpose of Chapter XIII o f the Railways Act does no t necessarily mean a passenger as contemplated under Se c tion 2(29) of the 1989 Act. Rather explanation appended to S ection 124A provides that the passe n ger shall include:

¶91

a) a railway servant o n duty;

¶92

b) a person who has p urchased a valid ticket for travellin g by a train carrying passengers on any date; or

¶93

c) a valid platform ti c ket and becomes a victim of an unto w ard incident.

¶94

The definition is inclusi v e. It does not exclude any cate g ory. Definition of ‘passenge r ’ as appended to Section 124A by explanation is much wid e r than the definition of ‘passenger’ as provided under Section 2( 2 9) of the 1989 Act.

¶95

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶96

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -13-

¶97

(ii) As per the dictum of law laid down in Rina Devi’s case (su p ra), once affidavit is filed by t h e claimant that the victim was trave l ling on a valid ticket, the initi a l burden to prove that the victim w a s a bona fide passenger sta n ds discharged. Thereafter, it is for the Railways to rebut the sam e to prove otherwise.

¶98

(iii) Untoward incident is diff e rent from accident. ‘Untoward inci d ent’ is defined under Sectio n 123(c) of the 1989 Act. Under f ive situations as contemplat e d under proviso appended to Se c tion 124A, the Railway Admin i stration may be absolved of its liab i lity. Any other situation that d oes not fall within the ambit of proviso appended to Section 124-A, invites liability of Rai l way Administration to pay co mp ensation. The compensation needs t o be paid as per the mandate o f statute as interpreted by Supreme C o urt in Rina Devi’s case (supr a ).

¶99

(iv) The liability of the Ra i lway Administration is based on the ‘principle of strict liabil i ty’. Plea of ‘no fault of railways’ or ‘negligence of the vict i m’ is not available to the Rai l way Administration.”

¶100

[17] Applying the aforesaid para m eters to the present case, claim a ntSarita Devi appeared as AW-1 wherein, she clearly testified with respect to her bein g in knowledge of the decease d having purchased ticket thus, she discharged initial onus. No evidence w a s led by the railways to rebut the same. T h e testimony of Sarita finds su f ficient corroboration from the f act that Bha r at, who was accompanying th e deceased and lost his life in the same inc i dent was found to be in possession of a valid ticket. Thus, t his Court ha s no hesitation in reversing th e finding recorded by the lear n ed Tribunal w ith respect to the deceased bei n g a bonafide passenger.

¶101

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶102

FAO-418-2021 (O&M) -14-

¶103

[18] The death of the petitioner is stated to be while travellin g in train. A d mittedly, his body was found o n the rail track at a point which f alls on the r o ute on which he was allege d to be undertaking rail jour n ey. Keeping i n view that 03 co-passengers d i ed in the same incident, this C o urt is of the considered opinion that it is n o t a case of voluntary act and t hus would fa l l within the meaning of unto w ard incident as enumerated u n der Section 1 2 3(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1 9 89 and not within the exceptio n as carved o u t under the proviso of Section 1 2 4-A of the Railways Act. [19] In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed . T he claimants are held entitled to the compen s ation as per the schedule.

¶104

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 08.11.20 2 4 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶105

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.14 03:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sarita and Others v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita and Others v. Union of India

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

Amarjit Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh and Anr.

Prem Singh Vs State of Haryana

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Sri Gurdwara Sahib Kukar Majra, Amloh, Patiala Vs Jagat Dass & Others

Mahender Singh Vs Virender

Bhupinder Singh Vs Karnail Singh

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Hawa Singh and Others