USHA RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are the dependants of deceased Ramesh Chander Aggarwal, have filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the RCT Act) against the order dated 17-4-1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants for compensation on account of the death of the aforesaid Ramesh Chander Aggarwal in a train accident, was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid Ramesh Chander Aggarwal was working as Assistant Engineer in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur. On 22-3-1995, he left his house at Jaipur for going to Hodal and then from Hodal to Faridabad for some urgent work. On the fateful day i.e. on 23-3-1995, he died in a train accident at the Hodal Railway Station when he was going from Hodal to Faridabad. At that time, he was having a Second Class ticket from Hodal to Faridabad. The police informed the appellants about his death at Hodal Railway Station. On subsequent enquiry by appellant No. 1, widow of the deceased, it was revealed that on the fateful day, the deceased was standing on the door of compartment of Mathura-Delhi passenger train and due to the jerk of the train, he fell down on the other side of the track and died. Appellant No. 1, after collecting some papers like Post-Mortem Report, Inquest Report, Death Certificate etc. filed the instant claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 16 of the RCT Act. This claim petition was filed by the widow of the deceased i.e. appellant No. 1, for herself and on behalf of three minor children of the deceased, who are appellant Nos. 2 to 4 in this appeal.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondents appeared and filed the written statement contesting the claim of the appellants. It was alleged that the deceased was run over by an unknown train on main line (Up) and his body was lying near starter signal. He was not a passenger, much less the bona fide passenger, and he had trespassed into railway property, therefore, the alleged accident does not fall within the ambit of Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Railways Act). It was denied that the deceased was travelling by the Mathura-Delhi passenger train, as such, the Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and the claim petition was sought to be dismissed.