INDERJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having lost their son in an "untoward incident" in a train, having lost their claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, the appellants are challenging the judgment dated 6-8-2004 before this Court.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 3/4-8-99 the appellants' son, Surendra Singh was travelling in the Awadh Express with a valid II class ticket from Lucknow to Kota. According to the witnesses, the compartment was over-crowded. Near the Ranthambore Railway Station, the train forcefully jerked. Consequently, their son, who was standing near the gate, was hit by the Home Signal. Their son was travelling with his other brother, Pawan Singh and with his cousin brother, Saghan Singh. As a result of hitting the Home Signal, their son sustained grievous head injury. His brother and cousin brother caught hold of him and pulled him back into the compartment. They did not let him fall off the train. Although the Railway Police Staff at the train station rushed their son to the hospital, but subsequently he succumbed to his injuries. The post-mortem was conducted at the hospital; the Railway Police also lodged a FIR. Since the appellant had lost their son, they filed a claim petition against the respondents before the learned Tribunal for Rupees 6,00,000/-.

(3.) The learned Tribunal framed five issues. In order to support their case, the appellants filed three affidavits. Mr. Pawan Singh was also cross-examined by the respondents. Although the respondents have denied the averments made in the claim petition, they did not lead any evidence to buttress their case. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition ostensibly on the ground that the case did not fit into the definition of "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act. 1989 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Act", for short). According to the learned Tribunal, since the deceased was pulled back by his brothers and was not allowed to "fall down", the case is not covered under the definition of "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123 of the Act.