UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHAHIT HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 23 of the Railway Tribunals Act, 1957 impugns the judgment and order dtd. 12/10/2006 of Railway Claims Tribunal by which Tribunal, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 to the applicant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the order till realisation.

(2.) Briefy stated facts of the case are that, on 4/10/2003 applicant boarded a local train at Sandhurst Road Railway Station for going to his home at Kurla. After sometime, due to rush in the train and push of fellow passengers he fell down from the train on the platform of Sandhurst Road Station. He was found in seriously injured condition and was taken to St. George Hospital vide Station Master's Memo. The Memo at Exhibit-A4 states, the applicant was found in seriously injured condition on platform-1 and was sent to St. George Hospital alongwith Police Constable 3261. It appears, the statement of claimant was recorded by Police which states that he fell down from running local train due to crowd in the compartment. The statement is at Exhibit-A of the paperbook. Besides, discharge summary of St. George Hospital, states that claimant was brought by the police and was admitted in hospital with history of fall from running train. Additionally, applicant deposed and described the circumstances in which he fell from the moving train. So also, the claimant in support of his application, examined Anish Ahmed as witness no.2. This witness deposed that, he had purchased two tickets at Ghatkopar station one, for himself and another for the claimant. In the claim application, claimant has stated that he had kept the railway ticket in his purse which has been lost in the incident. In consideration of the evidence brought on record, the Claim Tribunal held that, claimant was a bonafide passenger in local train on 4/10/2013 and he met towards an untoward incident and sustained injuries and thus was entitled to receive the compensation.

(3.) Appeal challenges these findings, to contest that, claimant was not a bonafide passenger and injuries sustained by him, were not due to accidental falling from running train, but due to dash of the train, as he might be walking precariously on the edge of the platform due to his sheer negligence. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant would rely on the statement of the GRP constable, which states that, claimant had suffered injury due to dash by train. Contesting, as to issue of bonafide passenger, learned Counsel for the appellant, relied on the statement of On-Duty GRP Constable-Vijay Patil, which according to him, does not state or indicate, that the railway ticket was found in the possession of the claimant alongwith the other articles i.e. his wrist watch, one diary and one broken spectacle. Moreover, appellants would rely on claimant's statement recorded in the hospital (ExhibitA2), which does not state about loss of his ticket. It is therefore contended that the applicant was neither the bonafide passenger in the local train nor he met towards an untoward incident and sustained injuries due to accidental fall from the running train. Learned Counsel, would therefore urge, that impugned Judgment and Award be quashed and set aside.