UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal Act") has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2002 passed in Case No. OA/142/97, whereby, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal"), while allowing the claim case has awarded Rs. 4,00,000/ - as compensation and directed the appellant of the present appeal to make payment of 50 % of the award amount to the widow of the deceased and 10% each to the two sons and daughters of the deceased within a period of sixty days, failing which, it was directed to pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of order.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that one Urmila Gupta, filed an application before the Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124 -A of the Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation due to death of her husband due to fall from the running train. It was disclosed that on 29.6.1996 her husband (Late Raj Kumar Gupta) along with her two sons namely, Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Manish Kumar Gupta while returning from Ara to Patna after purchasing ticket arrived at Ara Railway Station to board a train for Patna at about 10.30 A.M. At about 11.30 A.M. a DMU passenger train running between Mughalsarai to Patna arrived at Ara Railway Station and stopped for two minutes. After the train stopped the two sons of the applicant boarded the train and just when her husband tried to board the train, the train without giving any alarm started to move and, thereafter, accidentally her husband fell down from the train. Her sons tried to get the train stopped by pulling emergency chain and when the train got slowed down the two sons got down from the train. Thereafter, they noticed that their father was lying unconscious on the railway track. Subsequently, the injured husband of the claimant was carried to Government hospital, Ara, where, he was given some medical aid and, thereafter, the injured was referred to P.M.C.H. The injured was subsequently brought to the P.M.C.H. where doctor declared him dead. Accordingly, a U.D. Case was registered at P.M.C.H. Fardbeyan of son of deceased namely Sanjay Kumar Gupta was got recorded by Pirbahore Police Station which was forwarded to G.R.P., Ara, and thereafter, a U.D. case vide Case No. 20 of 1996 was registered on 6.7.1996. On the dead body of the deceased post mortem examination was also conducted. The claimant claimed that her husband was an income tax assessee and whole family was dependent on him. Accordingly, claim petition was filed, and as such, a case vide Case No. OA/142/97 was registered. Before the Claims Tribunal, respondent/Railway appeared and filed written statement opposing the claim application. Before the Claims Tribunal affidavits were filed duly sworn by the widow of deceased, namely, Urmila Gupta, affidavit of Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Kumar, son of the deceased and affidavit of Manish Kumar Gupta, second son of the deceased. Besides, affidavits certain relevant documents were also brought on record including copy of fardbeyan of the son of the deceased recorded by the Pirbahore Police Station. The learned Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the claim, allowed the claim application and directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - as referred hereinabove.

(3.) SRI Anil Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal taking a plea that since the accident had occurred while the father of the respondents was trying to get into the moving train, it may not be termed as untoward incident, but in such accident injury shall be considered as self inflicted injuries and accordingly, in such cases, no compensation is permissible. He has further assailed the judgment and order on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger since neither before the police nor before the Claims Tribunal any railway ticket was brought on record from the side of the claimants. He asserts that in absence of valid railway ticket the deceased may not be considered as a bona fide passenger attracting grant of compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act as well as Railways Act. Sri Singh has also tried to persuade the court that there are other contradictory materials which were sufficient to reject the claim application. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, in an irregular and illegal manner has allowed the claim application. According to him, the order of the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside.