JOJI C JOHN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A. No. 191 of 1996 is the appellant herein. On 13.11.1995 at about 7 a.m. while she was boarding the train Vanchinadu Express (Ernakulam-Trivandrum) from Kottayam Railway Station, there was a sudden jolt, and the appellant lost her hold and slipped and fell on the rail through the gap between the platform and the train, thereby the train ran over the foot of the appellant cutting the same and she sustained injuries on both side of the eyes. The appellant's left leg was amputated and now she is using crutches and wheelchair. She claimed an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation. The respondent Railways pleaded that the applicant fell down due to her own negligence and applicant has to give proof that she was a bona fide passenger. In para 5 of the reply statement it was also stated that liability of the respondent is subject to the Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. In effect it is admitted that the appellant fell down from the train, but according to the Railways, she was not a bona fide passenger and if she is a bona fide passenger, she will get compensation only as per the Rules and not Rs. 4,00,000 as claimed by her.

(2.) Appellant's claim for compensation was dismissed by a Member (Technical) (Single Bench without judicial member) on the following reasons:

(3.) According to us the only contention worth consideration was whether she was a bona fide passenger as mentioned in reason (a) as in the reply statement itself it is accepted that she fell down from the train and she got injuries as a result of falling down from train. Therefore, registering of F.I.R. by the Railway Police after getting information from Gandhi Nagar Police Station where Medical College Hospital is situated and where the appellant was treated after accident is of no consequence. Exh. P-l, F.I.R., itself shows that she was taken to Medical College Hospital from the spot by the Railway Police. Apart from PW 1, PW 3 also spoke about the accident and there is no case for the Railways even in the pleadings that no accident occurred. The averment that appellant fell down from the train as alleged is admitted, but according to the Railways, that was caused due to negligence of the appellant. She fell down accidentally. When there is an 'untoward incident' even when no negligence is proved on the part of Railway Officers, Railways is liable to pay compensation as prescribed in the Schedule. See sections 124-A and 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as amended by Railways (Amendment) Act, 28 of 1994. We also refer to the findings of a Division Bench of this court in Vijayasankar v. Union of India, 1996 ACJ 923 (Kerala).