SUKHDEV KAMLANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the appellant states that only the mother and the father of the deceased would be the de-pendents as the deceased Was a bachelor. Ac-cordingly, there is no need to implead the other applicants who were before the Rail-way Claims Tribunal.

(2.) The challenge by means of this First Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned order dated 29.9.2009 which has dismissed the Claim Petition by holding that the de-ceased while leaning out from the door of the train was hit by the pole, and thus the death being caused due to his own criminal negligence, no compensation can be granted. The relevant observations of the Trial Court in this regard are contained in the following portion of the impugned order and which reads as under:

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid paragraph shows that the deceased died because of his own criminal negligence. Once a person is guilty of his own criminal negligence it would not fall under the expression "unto-ward incident" as found under Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. No fault can be found with the conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal because the co-passenger who was travelling with the deceased himself made a statement at the relevant time that the death was on account of leaning out of the train.