ACHUTHAN NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimants is against an order dismissing an application for compensation filed under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, for short, 'Act'. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants and the respective learned standing counsel for the East Coast Railway and the Southern Railway.

(2.) The application was for compensation for loss occasioned by death on account of untoward incident. Deceased Aneesh Kumar, the son of appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3rd appellant, was a passenger in Coach No. 12, a reserved compartment, of Howrah-Chennai "Coromandal Express" on 1-12-2008. Local passengers who had not reserved seats intruded into that compartment, leading to an altercation between them and those who had reserved seats and were occupying them. In the course of that, Aneesh Kumar, a member of the Gourkha Regiment, on being provoked, pulled out his Bhujali (Khurpi). Some local passengers who, going by law, were ineligible to travel in that compartment, sustained injuries, statedly, from Aneesh Kumar's Bhujali. The mob turned on Aneesh Kumar. The unreserved local passengers informed about this to other local people over mobile phones. More than 500 local people congregated and attacked the train after stopping it by pulling the chain, near North Cabin of Khurda Road Railway Station. The mob disconnected the hose-pipe of the train; pelted stones and entered the bogies. The official report itself is that Aneesh Kumar tried to escape, but the mob caught up with him and had beaten him to a senseless condition. Later, he succumbed. A case was registered in relation to that incident and certain persons were arrested. The report of the Railway Police, including the First Information Report registered on the basis of the statement of the police constable who escorted the running train contains the candid admission of the Railway Police and the Railways that there was shortage of police personnel and that the available policemen could not control the mob or protect Aneesh Kumar.

(3.) The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the incident is not an 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123(c) of the Act and that even if it were one so, Aneesh Kumar suffered injuries and died only due to his own criminal act and, therefore, the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation in view of clause (c) of the proviso to Section 124A of the Act.