Court No. - 24
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1795 of 2001 Appellant :- Union Of India Thru' The G.M., Ner, Gorakhpur Respondent :- Smt. Kiran Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Lalji Sinha,Govind Saran,Praveen Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant/respondents for the death of one Sanjay Kumar Sah.
The claim petition was instituted by the claimant/respondents on the ground that Sanjay Kumar Sah was travelling by Train No.552 U.P. Summer Express on 16.05.2000 with a valid second class ticket being No.- 12860 from Ex-Bhabhnan to Barabanki. It was pleaded that the deceased accidentally fell down from the Train at Chowkaghat, Railway Station and died on the spot. The counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding with regard to issue no.-1.
The Tribunal while deciding the issue no.-1 has held that the accident is covered within Section- 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act.
The fact as is evident from record that the deceased had collided with a pole and thereafter he fell down and died. It is established on record that the deceased had died as he fell down from the Train. Section- 123 (c) (2) defines the accident and it is issue no.1 in the instant case, Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act reads as under:-
"(1) ........................
"(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
A bare reading of Section- 123 (c) (2) makes it evidently clear that the incident of falling from Train will come in the category of ''untowards accident.''
Learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, contended that the Railway is not liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the passenger had died due to self inflicted injury as defined in Proviso (b) to Section 124 A of the Railways Act 1989.
It is admitted that in the instant case the appellant did not lead any evidence to prove that the passenger has died due to self inflicted injury. The appellant did not dispute the fact that it was an accidental death as the deceased had collided with a pole and fell down from the Train and died.
If the death had occurred due to the falling of any passenger from the Train, the same is covered with the meaning 'untowards accident' as defined Section- 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. The Tribunal while appreciating the evidence on record has held that the accident which caused the death of the deceased comes within the definition of Section- 123 (c) (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The finding of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and since the appellant has not raised the contention in respect of Proviso (b) of Section 124 before the Tribunal, hence, in the facts of the present case the finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference in appeal.
Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Israr