Ramchander Shukla and Anr. Vs Union of India

[1] Challenge is to the Awar d passed by the Railway Cla i ms Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigar h , whereby the claim petition f i led by the a p pellants seeking compensation on account of death of decea s edGaurav K umar in an untoward incident w hile travelling by Railways st a nds rejected.

¶13

[2] The primary dispute relates to the deceased being a bona f ide passenge r . The claimants claimed th a t the deceased was travelling on Monthly Seasonal Ticket (MST), whi c h is a valid ticket. As per the claimants, he was travelling on MST No.X-60782408. The same could not be recov e red as the same was lost in the incident. The Tribunal disbelie v ed the story put forth by the claimants rega r ding lost of MST and further h eld that the c laimants claimed that the dece a sed was travelling on MST N o .X6078240 8 , whereas as per records produ c ed by railways authorities sho w ing the list o f MSTs issued for the relevant period, MST No.X-60782408 w as RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.29 14:04 issued in t he name of one Harsh Sharma. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

2

¶15

FAO-3191-2016 (O&M)

¶16

[3] Counsel for the appellant s submits that from the re c ord produced by the Railways, it is evident that MST No.X-60782408 tho u gh was issu e d in the name of Harsh Shar m a but entry prior thereto relate d to MST bea r ing No.X-60782405 relates to d eceased-Gaurav Kumar. He t h us, submits t hat from the records produce d by the Railways itself, it st a nds proved t h at Gaurav Kumar was holding a valid MST on the date of acci d ent and the c laim should not be non suited merely for the reason that the last digit of t h e number was wrongly mention e d as 8 instead of 5.

¶17

[4] Counsel for the respondent- U OI/Railways though submits t hat the age h a s been wrongly mentioned as 2 8 years, whereas as per the cl a im, Gaurav K umar was 29 but admits that so far as other details of Ga u rav Kumar are concerned, the same match wi t h the deceased. [5] In view thereof, this Court fi nds that once it stands proved t hat deceased - Gaurav Kumar was holding a v alid MST on the given date e v en though last digit was wrongly mentione d in the claim petition, the Trib u nal ought no t have held him to be a bon a fide passenger. Resultantly, the finding is reversed. The deceased is hel d to be bona fide passenger, hol d ing a valid MST on the date of accident.

¶18

[6] Counsel for the appellants f u rther drawn attention of this C o urt to Annex u re A-1 i.e. inquest report cond u cted under Section 174 Cr.P.C . by GRP, Jal a ndhar, wherein as per the me d ical opinion, the cause of deat h is due to rai l way track accident to submit that it is a case, wherein the dece a sed lost his life in an untoward incident. T h at being a case and there bein g no evidence to prove that there was any inte n tion on the part of the decease d to suffer sel f inflicted injuries, finding on I s sue No.2 also needs to be reve r sed RAJNEESH SHARMA in terms o f law laid down by the Supre m e Court in the case of ‘Union of 2025.05.29 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

3

¶20

FAO-3191-2016 (O&M)

¶21

India versus Rina Devi’, 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 40 . The deceased is hel d to have lost his life in an untoward incident a s contemplated under Section 124A of the R ailways Act.

¶22

[7] In view of the above, the cla i m petition filed by the claiman t s is allowed. They are held entitled for co m pensation of Rs.4,00,000/- al o ng with inte r est @ 7.5% per annum from t h e date of accident till the dat e of actual re a lization or Rs.8,00,000/-, whic h ever is higher. The compensa t ion shall be equally disbursed amongst the claimants. The claimants shall m o ve an appro p riate application giving details of their bank accounts before the Tribunal w ithin a period of 04 weeks wit h an advance copy to the Railw a ys. After re c eiving advance copy with res p ect to details of bank accou n ts, Railways shall within a further perio d of 12 weeks deposit the e n tire compens a tion payable to the claimants i n the bank accounts. In vie w of failure o f Railways to pay the compensa t ion within the prescribed perio d of 12 weeks , the Railways shall be liable to p ay interest @ 9% per annum.

¶23

[8] With the aforesaid modificat i on the appeal is disposed off . [9] All pending miscellaneou s application(s), if any, st a nds disposed o ff .

¶24

(PANKAJ JAIN)

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

23.05.20 2 5 ‘R. Sharma'

¶27

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

¶28

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.29 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ramchander Shukla and Anr. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchander Shukla and Anr. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs Amarjit Singh and Ors.

Punjab National Bank Vs Sh.Bachan Singh and Ors.

Gurinder Pal Singh Vs Surinder Kaur

Majinder Singh Vs Savinder Singh and Ors.

Kaushal Chopra Vs Prerna Chopra and Ors.

Rajan Singh and Another Vs Bimla Devi and Others