GURVINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present writ petition is for seeking directions to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for death of their father late Harjinder Singh, aged 45 years in an accident, that occurred while crossing an unmanned gate No. 0155-C, with train No.019023, Janta Express coming from the side of Jind junction and going to Bathinda.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners are son and daughter of late Harjinder Singh who was working as a Driver on a road roller with Contractor and was being paid a monthly salary of Rs.12,000.00 On 26/3/2017, the petitioner was coming from the side of village Kalwan at 21:35 hrs and was crossing an unmanned gate No. 0155-C. While he was crossing, the aforesaid train came from the side of Jind junction being driven by Gagan Singh-the Locomotor Pilot. When the train reached near Kilometer No. 188/2 on up line gate 0155-C, the road roller was crossing the Railway line and that despite the Locomotor Pilot having seen the said road roller, he did not/could not stop the train which struck against the road roller. The father of the petitioners died on the spot. An information in this regard was sent to the Guard MR Mina, who was on duty in the train, and information was also sent to the ASI on duty at Railway Station Damtan Sahib to handover body to the RPSF staff. A memo in this regard was received by Balwant Singh, Sub Inspector, JRP, Narwana. An endorsement was made thereupon and proceedings under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. FIR No. 0018 dtd. 27/3/2017 was registered at Police Station, Jind, District GRP Ambala regarding the incident and for commission of offences under Sec. 161, Railways Act read with Sec. 279 and 304-A IPC against deceased Harjinder Singh. The statement of the Railway staff was also recorded that the deceased had brought the Road Roller on the Railway crossing track in a negligent manner and had struck against the Train No.019023, Janta Express and died due to his own fault. Since the deceased Harjinder Singh had passed away in the said incident, a final report under Sec. 173 Cr. P.C. was filed by the Police since no further investigation was to be conducted, and an untraced report was submitted. The dead body of deceased Harjinder Singh was handed over to his LRs (Petitioners herein) and the road roller was taken in possession. The post mortem report established that death was due to head injuries and multiple injuries described therein and found the same to be ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death. It is however alleged that deceased Harjinder Singh died on account of negligence of the Driver of Janta Express and the Railways Department for not having deployed any person on the crossing point No. 0155-C due to which the accident in question took place. Further, the locomotive pilot also did not stop the train when deceased was on the crossing track.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the speed breaker board, railways track board and stop boards are provided at adequate distance on both side of approach road and were available at the unmanned level crossing No. 0155-C for information and caution. It was infact deceased Harjinder Singh-Driver of the road roller himself who was negligent and careless in crossing the unmanned level crossing despite an approaching train. The deceased failed to observe the traffic rules before crossing the railway track. He did not halt in the face of an approaching train despite approaching train being visible. The Railways thus cannot be held liable to compensate the petitioner for lapse of their father. It is submitted that as per Sec. 161 of the Railways Act, if any person is driving or leading an unmanned level crossing negligently, he himself is rendered liable for punishment of imprisonment upto a period of one year. It is also contended that Sec. 131 of the Motor Vehicle Act, casts duty to observe on a Driver, before crossing an unmanned level crossing, and that the deceased Harjinder Singh failed to observe the mandatory safeguard prescribed either under the Railways Act as well as under the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, the Railway authority or its officials cannot be held liable for not compensating the petitioners. A further argument is raised by the respondent that a detailed enquiry was also held by Railways by constituting a Committee of three Gazetted Officers and the said enquiry report has been attached alongwith the reply. Statements of as many as 06 witnesses was recorded by the Enquiry Committee and after collecting all the evidence at the site, it was reported as under"