BALJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 along with her two minor daughters has filed this writ petition to seek compensation on account of death of her husband Pappi Singh. Late Pappi Singh has died under very unfortunate circumstances. On 16.1.2006, he along with his father was returning to his village. When he reached at Railway Gate No. C-61 Dholewala, he found the gate closed. There was rush and it was traffic jam like situation. Late Pappi Singh was waiting at the Railway crossing for Railway gate to open and when it opened, he preceded ahead. While he was in the process of crossing the Railway gate, its wing broke and fell down on his head. Pappi Singh was seriously injured and was shifted to hospital. Ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries on 17.4.2006. Railway Police had registered report No. 13, dated 13.4.2006. Since the late husband of Petitioner No. 1 had died primarily because of the negligence of the Railway, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition to seek compensation from the Railways.

(2.) The perusal of the postmortem report would show that cause of death is due to complication on account of the deceased being bed ridden. It was resulted in facture dislocation at D5-D-6 level of spine. This injury was considered to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The Petitioners have placed on record the postmortem report.

(3.) In response to notice issued by this Court, the Respondent-Railway has filed reply. Though it is admitted that there is a report showing that Gate No. 61 was broken at 10.45 hours on 16.1.2006, as in this regard a message was received at Dhuri, but it is stated that there is no record regarding any injury or casualty of any person, which may have resulted on account of breaking of the gate. The Respondents, accordingly, would deny the accident on the ground that there is no proof of the same. The Respondents would also ultimately contest the liability of Railways by making reference to the provisions of Railways Act, by referring to Section 124 thereof. Accordingly, it is prayed that no case for grant of any compensation is made out.