UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Principal Bench of Railway Claims tribunal dated February 18,2008. By virtue of the impugned order the respondent herein was awarded compensation to the tune of rs. 1,60,000 along with interest thereon @ 9% p. a. from the date of order till actual payment, for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, which occurred on june 16, 2004 involving the train 'amriisar express.

(2.) LT so happened that on June 16, 2004 the respondent boarded from Panipat Amritsar express train bound for Delhi. When the train reached Sadar Bazar Station the respondent who due to heavy rush was standing on the doorway got pushed by other passengers and consequently fell out of the moving locomotive. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a bonafide passenger. It is also not in dispute that because of fall from the train he suffered severe injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg. What has been disputed isthe manner of the accident. As per the Railways, the respondent was getting down from the moving train at Sadar Bazar Railway Station and in that process he sustained injuries.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment of the Claims tribunal shows that the respondent/claimant in support of his case appeared as his own witness, while the Railways examined its booking Clerk at Sadar Bazar Railway Station as R. W. 1, the Guard of the train as Rs. W. 2 and the Sub-Inspector of Police who had investigated the incident as R. W. 3. The respondent in his evidence before the Claims tribunal stated that when the train was passing through Sadar Bazar Railway Station, due to the jerk and also on being pushed by other passengers, he fell down from the train and received injuries. He also deposed that because of rush in the compartment, he could not get a seat and he had to travel the entire distance by standing. He denied the suggestion that he was alighting from the running train at Sadar bazar Railway Station and in that process he sustained injuries. As regards the evidence from the side of Railway Administration, the booking Clerk merely stated that he did not receive any information that a passenger had fallen from the train. The Guard of the train who deposed as R. W. 2 also stated that no incident of any person having fallen from the train was reported to him. The evidence of both these witnesses was of no assistance to the Railways specially when it was not disputing the factum of theaccident. The Sub-Inspector of Police, R. W. 3 in his deposition said that as per his inquiry the respondent met with an accident while trying to board the running train. His evidence was Totally at variance with the case set up by the Railways. As already noticed above, the Railway administration had opposed the claim on the ground that the respondent was trying to alight from the moving train while R. W. 3 deposed that he was trying to board the running train.