LALITADEVI Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are parents, widow and children of Late Shri Ram Auttar @ Rangdar Paswan. They filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in respect of death of Late Shri Ram Auttar due to the injuries sustained in an "untoward incident" on 20th January, 2011 relating to the EMU train at New Delhi railway station. After trial, Tribunal has dismissed the claim application by the order dated 4th February, 2014, which has been impugned in this appeal.

(2.) Appellants alleged in the application that on 20th January, 2011 deceased was returning to his native village in Bihar from Delhi. He was to board a train from New Delhi railway station. Since he was having sufficient time, he went to Sadar Bazar to meet his friends. After meeting them, he boarded EMU train at Sadar Bazar railway Station for going to New Delhi railway station. At about 2:15 pm train reached near New Delhi railway station therefore, deceased came at the gate of compartment when train jerked violently while changing the tracks. As a result of this jerk deceased fell down from the moving train and his both legs came under the wheels. Journey ticket and money were lost in the incident. Deceased was removed to J.P.N. Hospital after the incident, where he died on 8th February, 2011. DD No. 22-A dated 8th February, 2011 was recorded in this regard. Since deceased died due to "untoward incident" appellants were entitled to compensation.

(3.) Respondent denied the happening of incident. Respondent denied that deceased was travelling in the EMU train from Sadar Bazar railway station to New Delhi railway station with his luggage. Respondent denied that deceased fell down from the compartment on account of violent jerk of the train at New Delhi railway station and sustained injuries. Respondent alleged that deceased was not a bonafide passenger of an EMU train as no journey ticket was recovered from him. As per the respondent, incident did not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 ("the Act", for short), amounting to an "untoward incident", thus, appellants were not entitled to compensation under Section 124 A of the Act. Respondent claimed that deceased died due to his own criminal negligence, which amounted to self-inflicted injury.