NATHMAL HANSARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the parents of deceased Kabita Hansaria claiming compensation against the Railways amounting to Rs.5 (five) lacs, Rs.2 (two) lacs for the death of their daughter, deceased Kabita Hansaria and Rs.3 (three) lacs for mental and emotional shock suffered by the complainants. The complainant No.2, i. e. mother with her son and daughter deceased Kabita boarded the Tinsukia Mail on 27.12.90 at Delhi for travelling to Guwahati. It is stated that the train was interconnected train with facility of travelling/going from one compartment to the other in case of need by any of the passengers. The passage according to the petitioner has to be thoroughly covered and protected. On 29.12.90 there was no water in the compartment in which the above persons were travelling and near Chansari Railway Station, deceased Kabita felt the need for attending her call of nature. As there was no water, she was going to next compartment through the passage which was supposed to be covered and protected by the Railways for the safety of the passengers, but that particular passage, according to the petitioners had no side grills for safety of the passengers. When deceased Kabita was passing through the passage, due to sudden and great jerk because of sudden increase in speed, she fell down on the ground and was run over by the said train and died on the spot. A case was registered being GRPS 9u/ d/case No.32/90 dated 31.12.90 and after investigation it was found that death was due to accident. A final report has been submitted by the Police and the same was accepted by the learned S. D. J. M. vide order dated 11.12.91 which is annexed herewith as Annexure-2. The post mortem was also conducted and according to the opinion of the Doctor, death was due to crush injuries on the head and report is at Annexure 3 to this petition. It has been alleged that the death was due to negligence of Railways in performing their duties, inasmuch as the Railways did not take appropriate steps for checking/mending the passage interconnecting the two compartments before the journey.

(2.) The deceased Kabita after her studies was managing the shop of her father and her monthly income was Rs.1500/- and at the time of her death, she was 21 years. The complainants also spent Rs.10,000/- in performing her last rites.

(3.) In the counter filed on behalf of the , it has been denied that there was negligence on the part of the Railways. It has also been denied that the passage in question between the two compartments was not protected to prevent any accident. According to the respondents the Coach in which the deceased Kabita was travelling was a new Coach turned out of JUW Workshop on 17.11.90 after its complete over hauling and was provided with a new vesitbles in complete condition required for safety of the passengers including the side grills. It has also been denied that there was no water in the compartment in question. It has been denied that deceased Kabita felt need for attending her call of nature and that as there was no water in the compartment, she had to go to the adjoining compartments where the water was available. According to the respondents no complaint was received from any passenger regarding non-availability of water in the compartment in question. The main question that has been raised is that the petition is not maintainable in view of the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short the Act ).