Mohan Lal v. Union of India

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 24.1.2014 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant who was injured in an untoward incident on 26.2.2012.

2. The case of the appellant was that on 26.2.2012, he was travelling by the train Himalaya Queen Exp. Train from Kalka to Delhi and he fell down accidently from the running train near the Sarai Rohilla/ Delhi Railway Station due to sudden jerk in the train. 2014:DHC:2607 3(i) So far as the aspect that the deceased was a bonafide passenger is concerned, the same is found in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has however found that the appellant was guilty of criminal negligence and the present case was a case of self-inflicted injuries because the appellant tried to de-board the train which was coming at a high speed in the station. The appellant has been held to be trying to de-board the train which was entering the station at a high speed and which is clear from the fact that the bogie/coach from where the appellant was de-boarding was the second coach from the engine. When a long distance train, and which has around 16 to 19 bogies, enters a station, in its natural course, at the initial stage of entering the station, the speed is high, and which speed gradually comes down when the train slows down for stopping at the requisite places where engine has to stop and the bogies have to be placed.

(ii) The Tribunal has in this regard relied upon the statement of an eye witness Sh. Ramsakal Basisth, an employee of the Railway Police Force and this eye witness specifically stated that the appellant tried to get down from the running train which was at a high speed and consequently suffered injuries in the process. The relevant paras of the judgment of the Tribunal are paras 8 and 9, and which read as under:-

4. I completely agree with the aforesaid observations and conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal because there is no reason why statement of an independent witness and who is an employee of the Railway Police Force, should be disbelieved. I may note that strict rules of Evidence and CPC do not apply to the Railway Claims Tribunal, and therefore, I disagree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant that the statement of Sh. Ramsakal Basisth could not be used unless he was brought into the witness box by the respondent. Contemporaneous statement made to the appropriate authorities, at the time of happening of the untoward incident can be used as a document as per facts of each case in cases before the Railway Claims Tribunal. In the facts of this case on preponderance of probabilities the Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly believed the statement of the independent/neutral witness Sh. Ramsakal and which has been proved as Ex.R-18 and if the appellant wanted to dispute the statement/document Ex.R-18, the onus was upon the appellant to summon Sh. Ramsakal, and which he failed to do.

5. As per the provisions of Section 123(c) read with Section 124- A of the Railways Act, 1989, no doubt the liability of the Railways is a strict liability, but it is equally well settled that once a person gets injured on account of his own criminal negligence or the case is a case of self-inflicted injuries, no compensation can be awarded.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal, and which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MAY 16, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib