SUGAN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal passed on 12.11.1998. The facts in short relevant for deciding this appeal are: -

(2.) One Mr.Sandeep Garg son of the appellant was a bonafide passenger in Lucknow Mail and while travelling from Hapur to New Delhi on October 8, 1996, he fell down at the Tilak Bridge Railway station and died because of the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. The appellant filed an application claiming compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal for the death of his son in the said untoward accident. In the written statement filed by the respondent-Railway Administration the only ground on which the appellant was stated to be not entitled to compensation was that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as he was not holding a valid railway ticket in original. On these pleas being taken, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: -

(3.) While the appellant produced four witnesses before the Tribunal, the respondent did not lead any evidence. The Tribunal after discussing the evidence on record held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train and was travelling on 8.10.1996 in Lucknow Mail and had a valid season ticket from Hapur to New Delhi. The Tribunal, however, held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation as the deceased must have been trying to get down from the running train at Tilak Bridge Station, which resulted in his falling down and dying on the spot and the passengers are not supposed to get down at unscheduled halts of the train and if they do so they do it at their own risk and the same becomes the cause of self-inflicted injuries due to which the appellant would not be entitled to compensation. It was held by the Tribunal that the post-mortem of the deceased having been waived off, the cause of the death could not be known and consequently the appellant could not be held entitled to compensation. As already mentioned above, being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.