(1.) A person holding a platform ticket falls from a moving train and later dies. Whether the Railway Administration can be fastened with the liability to pay compensation for the death of such a person on an application filed by the wife and daughters of the deceased? This is the question that has come up for consideration in this appeal by the claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The application filed by them was dismissed by the Tribunal.
(2.) The facts in short are that on 24-2-2001, deceased Shankar Lingappa accompanied by his wife and daughter and granddaughter came to Mysore Railway Station and after his wife, daughter and granddaughter sat in the train, which was bound towards Bangalore, the deceased, who according to the claimants, was holding a platform ticket, alighted from the train at around 5.55 p.m. and as the train was moving, he fell down and his leg was caught between the platform and coach outside wall. He was literally sandwiched between the two. Later, he succumbed to the injuries at K. R. Hospital, Mysore. The appellants herein being the wife and daughters of the deceased Shankar Lingappa, filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railways Act, 1989, and claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the said application and in the course of his order held that a platform ticket holder is not authorised to enter a coach, he cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger and further, the act of the deceased falling down from the moving train cannot be termed as untoward incident and by holding that the act of the deceased was a self inflicted injury coming within the explanation of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (the 'Act' for short), Railways Claims Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that appellants herein are not entitled for any compensation. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the applications, applicants have preferred this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel Shri Bopanna for the appellants argued that a careful reading of Section 124-A of the Act will make it clear that even a person holding a valid platform ticket would come within the definition of 'passenger' and consequently, as the deceased fell down from the moving train after seating his wife, daughter and granddaughter in the train, the fall from the train therefore comes within the expression 'untoward incident' as explained in Section 123C(2) of the Act. The learned counsel also referred to Section 124 of the Act to contend that the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. Based on these provisions of the Act, learned counsel argued that the Claims Tribunal while accepting the fact of the deceased having been found to be in possession of platform ticket could not have held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and as far as the incident of falling from the train is concerned, learned counsel argued that the expression 'untoward incident' covers the cases of a person falling down from the train while trying to enter the train as well as alighting from the train. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 : 2009 AIR SCW 4165 and drew special attention to paras 10 and 11 of the said decision. Therefore, it was contended that the dismissal of the claim application by the Railways Claims Tribunal is contrary to the aforementioned provision of law as contained in the Railways Act and hence the appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.