HAVANA GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No.2185/2022, an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. For the reasons stated in the application duly supported by an affidavit and as no reply has been filed by the Railway Administration, I.A. No.2185/2022 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) Learned counsel counsel for the appellants submit that he is aggrieved of order dtd. 12/7/2019 and then 11/11/2019 passed by learned Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal rejecting application and review application filed by the claimants on account of death of Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who is husband of Claimant No.1 and father of Claimants No.2,3 and 4 and Claimant No.5 mother of the deceased on the ground that since deceased died of injuries sustained by him within the coach due to jerk therefore, it will not be covered within the definition of accidental falling as provided in Sec. 123(c)(2) of the Railway's Act, 1989.

(3.) Shri Shafiqullah has placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in case of Bibi Shabnam Khatoon and Others Vs. Union of India, 2019 ACJ, 1912 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has mentioned that once it is established that deceased was a bono fide passenger and post-mortem report records laceration of spinal cord subsequent upon blunt force impact which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature the case would be covered as an untoward incident. It held that Railway's failed to proved that deceased had already suffered a blunt force impact. Passenger can be injured inside the compartment whether the train is moving or is stationary and falling of a passenger inside the compartment could occur because of a mishap and it ought not to be necessarily seen as a self-inflicted injury and, therefore, awarded compensation.