UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHUKH LAL MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 6.6.2008 which allowed the claim petition of the respondents, and which petition was filed for claiming compensation for the death of one Sh. Nagardeep Mandal.

(2.) THE facts as laid out in the claim petition were that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling on 8.6.2003. On the train journey when the train passed through Turiganj Railway Station, the deceased fell down from the running train on being pushed by the heavy crowd of passengers and jerk of the train. THE deceased Nagardeep Mandal was travelling with Mr. Bikash Chandra Mandal who pulled the chain and whereby the train stopped. Sh. Nagar Deep Mandal had in the meanwhile succumbed to his injuries on account of the fall from the train. THE only defence of the appellant/respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal was that the deceased died due to his own negligence as he was standing at the door of the sleeper class compartment and where he slept and therefore fell off the train due to his own negligence.

(3.) A reading of the ratio in the case of Jameela (supra) shows that even if the deceased fell from the train due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124- A of the Railways Act, 1989. This is specifically stated by the Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgment. It is also the ratio of the judgment in Jameela's case (supra) that unless a criminal act as envisaged under Clause (c) of Section 124A of the Act has an element of malicious intent or mens rea, it would not mean that the incident is not an untoward incident inasmuch standing at the open doors of a compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but the same is certainly not a criminal act.