UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATYABATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are these. One Tribhuan Singh, aged about 21 years, who was employed by the Eastern Railway as a cleaner, was deput ed on the 18th April, 1956, to clean the smoke- box of engine No. 1076, which was standing on line No. 1 at the loco-shed at Gaya. As the smoke-box could not be opened without the help of some instruments, Tribhuwan went to fetch the same from the gunti beyond line No. 3, on which engines Nos. 2012 and 2030 were standing. Engine No. 2012 moved sudden ly without any signal, whistle or other precau tions and consequently Tribhuan came with in the buffers of the two engines and severely injured at 11.15 hours that day. Thereafter engine No. 2012 was moved forward to release Tribhuan, who was then taken to the railway hospital at Gaya. But he died as a result of the injuries at 13.45 hours the same day. Tribhuan was then drawing Rs. 30 per month as salary and Rs. 40 per month as dearness allowance. The widow, minor daughter, mother and grandmother of Tribhuan instituted a suit in forma pauperis to recover Rs. 28,550 as compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act. 1855, as they claimed to be the only beneficiaries.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs respondents the above accident was due to the negligence of some employees of the railway, namely, Kamala Pd., R. N. Sharma, Jagdish Pd., and Khowa Lal. The defendant appellant denied the alleged negligence on the part of its servants " and asserted that the accident took place on account of negligence, misadventure and violation of safety rules by Tribhuan. It was further asserted that, in anv case, Tribhuan was entitled to compensation under proviso (b) to Section 3 of the Workmen's Compenstaion Act, and the appellant was prepared to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 2,100 as compensation. The last plea was that the claim under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act was not maintainable, particularly because all the beneficiaries were not made parties.

(3.) The Learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit rejected the defence on all the points and granted a decree for Rs. 14,000 as compensation to the plaintiffs.