Ram Sajiwan Saroj v. Union of India

1. Claim application filed by the appellant seeking compensation of `10 lacs under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 („the Act‟, for short), has been dismissed by the Railway Claim Tribunal, vide order dated 16.08.2011. Aggrieved by this order the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Appellant alleged in the claim application that he boarded Gorakhdham Express at Shakurbasti Railway Station for going to Amethi in Uttar Pradesh on 15.09.2009 after purchasing a valid ticket. Due to the sudden jerk of the train, he fell down from train at the platform itself and his 2014:DHC:7080 left leg was amputated at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital where he was taken for treatment after the incident.

3. Respondent disputed the above facts. Respondent alleged that appellant was not a bona fide passenger of the said train. He did not suffer injuries in any “untoward incident”, within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. Appellant sustained injuries due to his own negligence, carelessness and wrong acts. Thus, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. It was prayed that claim application be dismissed.

4. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “(1) Whether the injured Shri Ram Sajiwan Saroj, S/o Shri Muneshwar Prasad, was a bona fide passenger of Gorakhdham Express Train from Shakurbasti Railway Station to Amethi, as on 15.09.2009? (2) Whether the applicant has received injuries in an untoward incident as alleged in the claim application? If so, what effect? (3) What were the nature of injuries suffered by the applicant? (4) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the applicant injured entitled? (5) Relief?”

5. Both the parties lead evidence. The appellant examined himself as AW[1]. As against this, respondent examined the Station Master of Shakurbasti Railway Station, namely, Sh. Shashank Srivastava as RW-1. Extract of “Untoward Incident Register” and map of Shakurbasti Railway Station were also placed on record and proved as Ex.R1/1 and R1/2 respectively.

6. Upon scrutiny of evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal has concluded that appellant had failed to prove that he fell down from the Gorakhdham Express at Shakurbasti Railway Station resulting in amputation of his leg. Tribunal also observed that the ticket recovered from the appellant was a second class general ticket and was not sufficient to prove that appellant was travelling in Gorakhdham Express. By placing reliance on Ex.R1/1 and ExR1/2, the Tribunal has held that Gorakhdham Express train departed at 20:16 hrs on 15.09.2009 from Platform No.1, Line No.1 of Shakurbasi Railway Station; whereas appellant was found lying near water cooler of Platform No.3, Line No.4 at 2.30 hrs. on 16.09.2009, that is, after about 6 hrs of the departure of „Gorakhdham Express‟ from platform No.1. It was not possible for the incident to have remained unnoticed for 6 hrs,that too, at the platform where number of persons remain present. It was further observed that the circumstances suggested that appellant might have been run over by some train while crossing the railway tracks.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the Tribunal‟s record and do not find any perversity or illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal. The case of the appellant as set up in the claim application and his deposition is that he boarded Gorakhdham Express at Shakurbasti Railway Station but due to the heavy rush, he was at the gate of compartment on account of heavy rush. Due to the sudden jerk, he fell down from the train before the train could cross the platform and sustained injuries. He fell unconscious and was removed to hospital. This version of his is highly suspicious and doubtful in view of the fact that Gorakhdham Express departed from Platform No.1 at 20:16 hrs (8.16 p.m.) when he allegedly fell down from the train at the platform itself; meaning thereby, according to him, incident took place on 8.16 p.m. However, he was first noticed lying near the water cooler of Platform No.3, Line No.4 of the station which is away from platform No.1. However, he was found lying at Line No.4 near water cooler of platform no.3 at 2.30 a.m., that is, after 6 hrs of the alleged fall from the train. It is highly improbable that incident could have remained unnoticed for nearly 6 hrs, that too, at the platform where public person besides the police officials and railway employees remain present all the time. It is not the case that he had fallen from the train at odd hours and at some isolated place where of his remaining unnoticed were possible. The circumstances indicate that the appellant might have been run over by some train passing through Line No.4 while crossing the tracks. Recovery of second class general ticket, by itself, is not sufficient to show that the appellant was travelling in Gorakhdham Express.

8. Cases of run over by crossing the railway line would not fall within the ambit and scope of „untoward incident‟ as defined in Section 123(c) (2) of the Act, which envisages that accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers amounts to „untoward incident‟. Section 124-A of the said Act provides compensation to the victims of „untoward incidents‟. Proviso to Section 124-A further envisages that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) selfinflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said „untoward incident‟. In this case, since appellant had failed to prove that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident, therefore, Tribunal has rightly held that he was not entitled to any compensation.

9. Appeal is dismissed. A.K. PATHAK, J DECEMBER 16, 2014 RB