OM PRAKASH KATHURIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this First Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal which dismissed the Claim Petition of the legal heirs of deceased, one Smt. Ram Devi.

(2.) THE case which was laid out in the Claim Petition was that the deceased on 24.3.2005 at about 8.30 AM was trying to board the train no. 385 and when she had put one step on the train, the train moved without any horn or signal and therefore as a result the deceased fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries causing her death. It is stated that deceased was a bonafide passenger holding railway pass number D- 43176660 which was valid from 2.2.2005 to 1.5.2005. THE defence of the respondent/Railways was that the deceased was, in fact, trying to cross the tracks in an illegal manner after arriving at platform no. 1 by a train and while crossing the tracks was, in fact, hit by the train no.385. THE case of the Railways was that the deceased should have in fact used the foot over bridge for reaching to platform no. 2 from platform no.1 but since she was crossing the railway tracks she was hit by the train no. 385 and it is not as if she was trying to climb the train no. 385. THE Tribunal has noted that the only evidence which was led on behalf of the complainants was that of the deceased's husband, AW-1, and who was admittedly not an eye witness to the incident. THE Tribunal has thereafter referred to the evidence of the witness of the Railway Administration Mr. Jagdish Prasad, S.S. Bijwasan, who reported that the driver and guard of the train no. 385 informed on walky-talky that one lady while crossing the tracks came into the contact with the train. It was the stand of the respondent's witness that if the deceased had used the foot over bridge at Bijwasan to go from one platform to another platform then the accident would not have happened. THEre was no cross-examination of this witness of the Railways.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also sought to argue that the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 must be liberally read. There is no argument to this proposition of law that the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act, has to be liberally read, however, the same has to be liberally read where there is an untoward incident caused and not when a person died out of his own criminal negligence in crossing the tracks. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.