RAJINDER KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unfortunate accident which cut prematurely the life of a youngman of 21 is the occasion for the present suit, for the recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs by plaintiff No. 1, the mother of the deceased Gurprit Singh and plaintiffs 2 and 3 sister and brother of the deceased. Gurprit Singh was a final year student of Punjub Engineering College, Chandigarh, in the year 1967. The college arranged a trip for carrying final year mechanical students from Chandigarh to Asansol, from Asansol to Howrah and from Howrah to Tatanagar and from Tatanagar to Bombay and then back to Chandigarh. A bogie CT 3816 was booked from 15th December, 1967 to 3rd January, 1968 through the Chief Operating Superintendent Northern Railway, New Delhi. The train 308 Down containing the bogie reached Howrah on 21st December, 1967 and the bogie was kept far away from Howrah Station. On the morning of 22nd December, 1967 when the deceased Gurprit Singh came out of the bogie and was going to Howrah platform to get his breakfast and was crossing the railway lines, an electric train struck the deceased and as a result thereof he died in the Howrah hospital. It is alleged that the accident was caused by gross negligence of Eastern Railways as bogie was kept at an unsafe place. The deceased was said to be a sportsman and came from a good family and was assured of a bright future. On these pleadings a decree of Rupees five lakhs as compensation is prayed for.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the Union of India, preliminary objection was taken that as the tour was arranged by the Punjab Engineering College, the responsibility was on the college which was a necessary party. Objection was also taken that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 have no locus standi to file the suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 185 5 (hereinafter called the Act). The factum of death of the deceased was admitted but it was denied that it was due to the negligence on the part of the defendant. It was stated that the coach was parked in Tikipara yard along with the rake as usual for washing, cleaning and checking. Due to post route relay work, it was not possible to detach the coach on arrival but it was placed on the V.I.P. siding adjacent to platform No. 8 on the next morning. There was said to be a protected/safe passage leading from Tikipara yard washing lines to Howrah Railway Station which is normally adopted by the Railway staff for going from the washing lines to Howrah Railway Station. But as the deceased and other students in their over-enthusiasm did not use that passage and trespassed on the railway lines, responsibility tor this unfortunate accident, it was claimed, cannot be put on the railways. It was also stated that the enquiries have revealed that electric train No. C-163UP came from Howrah side after giving due warning by blowing whistle, but the deceased even after having seen the approaching train tried to cross the railway lines in an attempt to catch train No. 32S Down which was going towards Howrah and had stopped outside the signal, and as a result the deceased dashed against the left side buffer of the said train. The deceased was said to have been picked up.by the driver and Assistant Driver of C-163 UP and taken to Batnangachi railway dispensary where the incharge of the dispensary gave him the medical assistance but as there was no adequate arrangement for treating the deceased there the deceased was sent to Howrah General hospital for treatment where he unfortunately died. The accident was said to have taken place by dashing against the left side buffer of C-163 UP at about 0730 hours on 22nd December, 1967 at K.M. Post No. 2 of the UP Mainline. The allegation of the negligence and fault of the railways is denied and it is also denied that the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 26th May, 1970: 1. Is the suit bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties ? If so, what is its effect ? 2. Whether plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 have locus standi to file the suit ? 3. Whether the notice under section 80 Civil Procedure Code served on the defendants was not valid ? 4. Whether this court has jurisdiction ? 5. Whether death of Gurprit Singh on 22nd December, 1967 resulted on account of gross negligence and misconduct of the defendants ? 6. If issue No. 5 is proved, to what damages the plaintiffs are entitled. 7. Relief. Further additional issue was framed on 6th September, 19 1. Whether the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh is necessary party ?