UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIRENDRA BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 16th May, 2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench in Application No. OA/II/279/02DEOS (Shri Virendra Bharti and another Vs. Union of India), whereby the tribunal allowed the claim petition of the respondents/claimants and awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest on account of death of deceased Arun Kumar Bharti in an untoward incident on 23rd September, 2001.

(2.) THERE is no dispute with regard to nature of accident resulting in death of the deceased. From the evidences and the submissions of the contesting parties, it appears that the deceased was travelling by train having valid ticket but his body was leaning out of the coach when struck against a signal pole of the railway, as a result whereof he fell down from the train and expired. Parents of the deceased are the claimants. The real controversy is whether the accident is self-inflicted injury or untoward incident. The tribunal held that the case of the respondents/claimants is totally covered by Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 123 (c) of the said Act speaks about untoward incident when Section 124-A speaks about the compensation on account of untoward incident. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) has already held in a judgement reported in AIR 2008 Allahabad 124 (Union of India Vs. Vidyawati and others) that the first test in such circumstance would be whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not. In this case, there is no doubt that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. To substantiate the word 'bonafide' we hold and say that in our country there is a difference between reserved compartments and unreserved compartments. Facilities of reserved compartments can not be equated with the unreserved compartments at all. In the cases of reserved compartments, the seats of the valid ticket holders are reserved. Journey is comfortable. Identities are known. Normally, there is no chance of leaning out of the door by any one. If it happens, self-inflicted injury or criminal act can not be ruled out and as such accurate analysis of evidence only rule out such possibility. But in the cases of unreserved compartments there is no such scope of identification. Who will come first, he will occupy the seat. Journey is not comfortable. If the seats are not available, passengers are compelled to stand in the coach and when rush is more, passengers are compelled to stand even on a foot-board. Sometimes their bodies are leaning from the doors or open windows. On the other hand, railway authorities are issuing tickets irrespective of accommodations at their peril. THEREfore, railway authorities are obviously responsible for the cause.

(3.) HENCE, following the maxim that potior est conditio possidentis meaning thereby possessor's condition is better and further praesumptio violenta valet in lege, meaning thereby law values strong presumption, we uphold the judgement and order passed by the tribunal. So far as payment of compensation is concerned, since the Union of India has preferred the appeal within the prescribed period of preferring the appeal, the compensation amount will not carry simple interest @ 16% per annum but will carry simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the order passed by the tribunal till the payment. Thus, the appeal is disposed of.