VILASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal" for the sake of brevity) in Claim Petition No. OAIIu/NGP/2011/0133 dated 29.03.2012. The appellant was travelling in a railway from Gondia to Bhandara on 23.01.2010 by purchasing a railway ticket. He boarded train no. 8030 Hawarha-Kurla Express in general compartment. Due to rush and jerk in the compartment, he fell down from the running train and sustained injuries to his left leg and right leg also. Railway Authority taken him for treatment and admitted in Government Hospital, Bhandara. His left leg was amputed below the knee. Due to the untoward incident, the appellant sustained permanent disability, therefore, claim petition was filed.

(2.) The Tribunal recorded its findings holding that appellant was not having valid railway ticket. He was selling the fruits in the railway without any license. While alighting from the train, he fell down. It was not untoward incident and, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel Ms. Hemlata Dhande holding for learned Counsel Shri Sable for the appellant. She has pointed out the evidence of the appellant and cross-examination by the side of railway. Learned Counsel has pointed out the judgment of this Court in the case of First Appeal No. 305 of 2010 decided on 01.07.2017. Learned Counsel has submitted that even though, he was a vendor without any license then also, the burden shifts on the railway to prove the defence. She has pointed out para 20 and 21 of the judgment and submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court, the appellant is entitled for the compensation. Learned Counsel has pointed out the judgment in the case of Savitra Devi and ors. Vs. Union of India, 2018 1 ACC 449 (Del.). Learned Counsel has submitted that the findings based on the investigation conducted by RPF without examining any witness on their behalf and rejection of statement recorded by GRP cannot be sustained. The findings based upon unacceptable evidence cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel has submitted that the respondent not examined any witness. The burden is not discharged by the respondent as held in First Appeal No. 305 of 2010, The Union of India Vs. Dhurpatabai w/o Kondiba Gomsale dated 01.07.2017. At last submitted that appellant has sustained 50% permanent disability and, therefore, as per amended Schedule, Part-III of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.