T V KUNJALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Branch is the appellant before this Court. The appellant has filed the said Claim Application wherein he has stated that he has boarded west Coast Express Train No. 8627 at chennai on 4-2-2000 in order to proceed to badagara (Kerala ). When the train reached the Salem Junction at about 6. 10 p. m. , the petitioner with a view to purchase refreshment from the mobile vendors, he was standing near the entrance of the compartment. At that time due to sudden start of the train with jerk and pushing of passengers, he lost control of the hold and accidentally slipped and fell between the platform and the train. Due to the said impact, his left hand was crushed and was amputated below elbow and he has also suffered grievous injuries abrasion and lacerated wound over the right thigh and right of forehead. He was sent to government Medical College Hospital, Salem. He got discharged since the treatment was not satisfactory and was admitted at united Hospital, Coimbatore. He was in-patient from 5-2-2000 to 1 3-2000. Claiming that his case has to be considered as accidental fall within the meaning of "untoward incident", the said Claim application has been filed.

(2.) REPLY statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has been stated that the appellant attempted to board the running train and fell down in between the platform and the train and sustained injuries. Since, the appellant attempted to board the running train, fell down and sustained injuries due to his own negligence, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Thus, the sum and substance of the reply statement on behalf of the respondent was that the accident has happened as a result of the rash and negligent act of the appellant for which the liability cannot be fastened on the railways. The Railway claims Tribunal, Chennai Branch after considering the rival claims dismissed the Claim application preferred by the appellant on the ground that due to the appellant's rash arid negligent act, he has sustained injuries, as such, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation for the injuries suffered by him. Challenging the said Order, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) MR. T. Raja Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the accident happened as narrated by the appellant, who has been examined as A. W. 1. To disprove the same, there is no contra evidence on the side of the respondent. The learned counsel further argued even assuming that the appellant sustained injuries while attempting to board the running train, even then, the appellant will be entitled to compensation. He has drawn my attention to Section 123-C (2) of the Railways Act. Section 123-C (2) of the Railways Act (hereinafter called the said Act) read as follows :