KASHMIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the impugned order, the Railway Tribunal has noted that the appellant got injured while attempting to board the train from the 'off side' of the platform. It is on this account that the Railway Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to compensation, as sought for, in the claim petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence on record to support the aforenoted finding of the Railway Tribunal, which erroneously relies upon the statement of the Guard. It is pointed out that the evidence of the Guard has not been recorded and so, his statement cannot be relied upon and that appellant was a bona fide passenger and so, he is entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 reliance is placed upon a Single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Union of India Vs. Kamal & ors., 2014 4 ACC 281 .

(3.) To controvert the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for respondent has drawn attention of this Court to page-42 of the trial court record to show that as per the Inquiry Report of the Railway Divisional Manager, the Guard- Babu Ram had clearly said in his statement that injured had fallen down from the train while trying to board it from the 'off side'. Attention of this Court was drawn to the statement of Head ConstableBhale Ram to point out that even this witness had stated that the injured had crossed the railway line and had tried to board the train from the side of platform No.2. While drawing attention to Section 124A of the Railways Act, it is pointed out that appellant had sustained grievous injuries due to his own act, which was criminal, as he had unauthorizedly crossed the railway lines and had tried to board the train from the wrong side and so, he is not entitled to any compensation and thus, appellant's claim petition has been rightly dismissed by the Railway Tribunal.