2007 JTR(All) 1143
2008 ACJ 1924 ; 2007 AIR(All) 178 ; AIR 2007 All 178 ; 2007 67 ALR 747 ; 2007 4 AlLLJ 451 ; 2007 AIHC 2588 ; 2007 2 AnWR 110 ; 2007 3 TAC 446 ; 2007 KHC 6871
AMITAVA LALA AND V. C. MISRA, JJ.
Union of India through General Manager and Anr.
Versus
Smt. Deomani Devi.
F. A. F. O. No. 2192 of 2002
Decided On : 23-4-2007.
The exemptions listed in Section 124-A of the Railway Act do not apply to circumstances where the deceased fell down from the train, and therefore, the Railway authority is liable for compensation.
Act Referred :RAILWAYS ACT : S.124(a)
Railway Act - Compensation - Interpretation of Section 124-A
Fact of the Case:
The deceased fell down from the train while traveling and sustained injuries. The Railway Claims Tribunal denied compensation citing Section 124-A of the Railway Act, which exempts compensation in certain circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's case was fully covered by the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act, and therefore, the Railway authority could not avoid liability. The appeal was dismissed, and any interim order was vacated.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 124-A of the Railway Act, liability of Railway authority for compensation in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 124-A of the Railway Act and held that the exemptions listed in the section did not apply to the circumstances of the case, and therefore, the Railway authority could not avoid liability for compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and any interim order was vacated. No costs were awarded.
Railway Act - Compensation - Interpretation of Section 124-A
Fact of the Case:
The deceased fell down from the train while traveling and sustained injuries. The Railway Claims Tribunal denied compensation citing Section 124-A of the Railway Act, which exempts compensation in certain circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's case was fully covered by the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act, and therefore, the Railway authority could not avoid liability. The appeal was dismissed, and any interim order was vacated.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 124-A of the Railway Act, liability of Railway authority for compensation in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 124-A of the Railway Act and held that the exemptions listed in the section did not apply to the circumstances of the case, and therefore, the Railway authority could not avoid liability for compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and any interim order was vacated. No costs were awarded.
Sushil Kumar Srivastava, for Appellant; Balwant Singh, for Respondent.
Judgement
AMITAVA LALA, J. :- Although the appeal has been place under the heading for orders but on the joint prayer of the learned counsel for the parties it has been taken up on merit by treating the same as for hearing. We have gone through the judgment delivered by Railway Claims Tribunal dated 13th August, 2002 and perused the record. We find that the sole cause under the appeal is that under Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1999 (hereinafter in short called as Act) no compensation can be awarded to the claimants in case the accident takes place in the manner which are exemptions under Section 124-A of the act, as follows :
"(f) Suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(g) Self-inflicted injury;
(h) His own criminal act;
(i) Any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(j) Any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent cited a judgment reported in AIR 1984 SC 1737, (Union of India and others v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh). However, such judgment is factually distinguishable herein for the reason that there the cause was that the passenger fell down from the train while the bogie, in which he was travelling, was being shunted. The Supreme Court held that it cannot be said to be an accident occurred from the train or part of the train to attract the liability. Here no such fact is available. The person concerned was
travelling in the train while he was going to his residence after attending the case in Allahabad High Court.
Moreover, the issue was decided under Section 124-A of the Act by saying as follows :
"No specific case has been set up even in the written statement and it has also not been shown that the present case is covered by any of the exceptions contained in Section 124-A of the Railways Act. There is no whisper or evidence that the deceased committed suicide or that died of his own criminal act or he was in the stage of intoxication. The post-mortem report also confirms the case set up by the applicant and it has been clearly stated that the deceased received injuries by falling from 2 VPL-Dn. passenger train."
3. Therefore, we are of the view that when the deceased fell down from the train and when the present case is fully covered by the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act, the Railway authority cannot avoid the liability. Thus, taking into totality of the case, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. Interim order, if any, in connection with any application/s stands vacated.
4. No order is passed as to costs.
5. V. C. MISRA, J. :- I agree.
Appeal dismissed.