A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde partly allowed the present appeal instituted under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act after appreciating the evidence availble on record in the present case and by observing that the appellant sustained the said injuries due to an “untoward incident” as stated under Section 123(c) of the Act, 1989.
On lack of proper evidence to negate the injury claim on the basis of ‘self inflicted injury”, the Bombay High Court noted the accident in the present case was caused by an “ untoward accident” as stated under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
By placing reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India v/s. Rina Devi, the Bombay High Court partly allowed the appeal instituted under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
The present appeal was preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the application instituted by the applicant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation for injuries sustained due to accidental fall from the train carrying passengers. The same was rejected by the Railways Claims Tribunal, through judgment and order dated March 17, 2009.
Facts in brief were that the applicant claimed that he fell from a local train on January 25, 2004 at Dadar Railway station due to heavy rush of passengers in the compartment. Consequently he sustained severe injuries to spine and pelvis and had to undergo six injuries at the LTGM Hospital, Mumbai. Thus on account of being a bona fide passenger,he claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,00, 000/-. However, the claim was opposed by the respondent- Railways contending that the appellant sustained injuries due to his own act of negligence and thus the claim was not admissible in absence of “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act of 1989.
The Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence available on record, rejected the claim of the appellant by an order dated March 17, 2009. It was this impugned order that was assailed by way of present appeal.
The
Court after hearing the submissions of both the parties, took into
account the provisions of the Act, 1989. The questions that were posed
before the Court were two fold. First whether the appellant was a
bonafide passenger or not, to which the Court gave the answer in
affirmative and observed that appellant was a valid passenger under Section 2 (29) of the Act.
The second question was whether the appellant sustained injuries in “ untoward incident” within the menaing of Section 123C (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. In view of the same, the Court persued the evidence of Mr. Jagpat, the Station Master of the Dadar Railway Station. His evidence revealed that, on January 25,2004, one unknown passenger, without disclosing his identity, informed him that a person aged about 52 years was knocked down by Badlapur train kilometer 8/25 near platform no.4. However, in cross-examination, Mr. Jagtap admitted that, personally, he did not see the accident. More so, motorman of BL-25 train, had not given a memo to the Station Master, nor he was examined by the respondents.
Thus in view of these aforesaid facts and evidences on record , the Court stated that the finding of the Tribunal, that the appellant did not sustain injuries in “ untoward incident” but suffered “ self inflicted” injuries was erroneous and therefore deserved to be set aside and quashed.
Further reliance was placed on the case of Union of India v/s. Rina Devi, wherein the Apex Court clarified the concept of ‘self inflicted injuries’. It was observed that "self inflicted injuries” would require intention to reflect such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree.
Thus in light of the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal was directed to grant compensation to the appellant in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1990, after verifying the medical evidence produced by the appellant in support of his claim. The appeal was accordingly party allowed.
edia is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments