UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUCHITRA GANESH PATHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Appeal is preferred by the Union of India through the General Manager of Central Railway challenging the judgment and order dated 05th September, 2007 passed by the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. The respondents herein filed a claim application under section 16 read with section 13 (1-A) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation on account of death of one Ganesh Suresh Pathare in an alleged untoward incident within the meaning of section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereianfter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) According to the case of the respondents the deceased was travelling by a local train on 03rd February, 2002 from Ambarnath to Mumbai-CST. According to the respondents, the deceased was holding a second class railway pass for the period between 16th January 2002 to 15th February 2002. The case of the respondents made in the claim application is that when the said train reached at KM No. 32/14 near Thane railway station at about 18.35 hours, the deceased banged on a railway post due to which he fell down from the running train and sustained serious injuries. According to the respondents he died on the spot. Accordingly, a claim for compensation was made by invoking section 124-A of the said Act. The appellant contested the claim application by filing a written statement. The written statement runs only into two pages containing general denials. The only specific contention raised is in paragraph No.3 of the written statement in which the appellant stated that death of the deceased occurred due to his own negligence.

(3.) The submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that there is no material on record to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the alleged incident. His submission is that by no stretch of imagination there was an untoward incident in as much as this was not a case of an accidental fall from the railway but the deceased who was precariously hanging outside the compartment banged against a pole standing near the railway track and that is the reason he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. He submitted that the deceased himself was negligent as he had no business to hang outside the compartment of the train. He submitted that this case falls in the exceptions carved out by the section 124A of the said Act.He submitted that the entire story put up by the respondents in their claim petition is unbelievable and is not supported by the evidence on record. He submitted that the Station Master s memo clearly shows that the deceased was knocked down by an unknown local train and therefore it cannot be treated as an accidental fall from the train. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and need to be interfered with by this Court.