In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.3853 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:3.8.2011 Mohan Lal and others .....Appellants v. Union of India through GM, Northern Railways .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ...... Present: Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the U.O.I.-respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The appellants are aggrieved against the judgment dated 25.1.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby claim petition filed by them seeking compensation on account of the death of Smt. Attar Devi in a railway untoward incident on 9.6.2008 has been dismissed by holding that the deceased jumped out of the running train, therefore, the injuries sustained by her in that process were proved to be self-inflicted one, which prohibits payment of any compensation to the F.A.O. No.3853 of 2010 [2] claimants as per the proviso (b) and (c) to Section 124-A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (`hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). Smt. Attar Devi along with her sister Smt. Satya Devi and some other relatives were going from Hisar to Haridwar on 8.6.2008 by train. They purchased railway tickets at Hisar railway station for Dhuri and boarded the train. After reaching at Dhuri railway station, they were waiting for the train for Haridwar. One train was stationed at the platform and one passenger told them that the said train was going to Haridwar, therefore, they boarded the said train. When the train proceeded towards Ludhiana, they verified in the train from a passenger as to whether the train was going to Haridwar. From the passenger they came to know that the said train was going to Ludhiana and not to Haridwar. They immediately tried to step-down from the train and in this process, Attar Devi slipped, came in the encirclement of the train and died at the spot. It is submitted that the train stopped immediately. The relatives of the deceased and the GRP with the help of other persons took out the deceased from the railway track and rushed her to Civil Hospital, Dhuri. The GRP personnel gave information to the Station Master, Dhuri railway station, who issued a memo to the GRP, Dhuri on 9.6.2008. On receipt of memo, the GRP reached at the spot and prepared the whole report and post-mortem on the dead body was got conducted. The doctor as well as the SHO had opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the death was caused due to injuries and due to railway accident. It has been further alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was having ticket No.43424413 for two persons and one reservation ticket PNR No.2449749717 for six persons from Hisar to F.A.O. No.3853 of 2010 [3] Haridwar via Dhuri. I have heard Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. H.S. Deol, Advocate, appearing for the respondent- Union of India and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before me that deceased lady with her co-passengers had boarded train No.1LJ by mistake and when they realized that it was a wrong train which was not going to Haridwar rather going to Ludhiana, they de-boarded the said train and in that process, the lady fell down and died at the spot, therefore, this is an incident which comes within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. On the other hand Learned counsel for the respondent had argued that the deceased lady had jumped out of the moving train and had suffered due to her own criminal act and the injuries being self inflicted can not take the place of untoward incident and Section 124-A of the Act is fully attracted in this case. I have considered the submissions of both the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully. It is admitted case that deceased lady had to go from Dhuri to Haridwar and after purchasing general ticket she had unintentionally boarded wrong train, which was going towards Ludhiana instead of Haridwar. As soon as she relied that she had boarded the wrong train she had tried to de-board from the train and in that process she fell down and come under the wheels of the train and died at the spot. It was thus proved that Attar Devi (deceased) was a bona fide passenger. F.A.O. No.3853 of 2010 [4] To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the deceased suffered due to her own criminal act and the injuries being self-inflicted, the Railway administration is protected from liability as envisaged under Section 124 A of the Act, Section 124-A of the Railways Act states 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) self-inflicted injury: (c) his own criminal act (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment become necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Perusal of the aforesaid Section 124-A of the Act does not clarify that the passenger must possess valid ticket for the same train from which he had an accidental fall. Deceased was proved to be bona fide passenger and she died in an untoward incident defined under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 577 has held that a passenger trying to board a moving train, if fell down and died, the Railway Authority is liable to pay compensation even if there was no fault on the part of the Railways, or that there was contributory negligence. It has been held that Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway F.A.O. No.3853 of 2010 [5] accidents, hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The Supreme Court has relied upon an earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086. Otherwise, also in two other cases similarly situated i.e. Case No.OA-II/118/2006, Smt. Kiran Yadav and others v. Union of India through GM, Northern Railways, decided on 19.8.2008 and Case No.OA-II/76/2007, Raj Kumar and others v. Union of India through GM, Northern Railways, decided on 30.1.2009, the same Tribunal had allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants and awarded compensation amounting to Rs.4 Lacs. The respondent-Railway was allowed 60 days time to make the aforesaid payment failing which, the applicants were held entitled to recover the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till realization of the same in favour of the claimants and against the respondent-Railways. As the claimants who were similarly situated had been allowed compensation by the Tribunal, the same relief is required to be given to the claimants-appellants in this appeal also. In the light of aforesaid decisions rendered by the same Tribunal, he ought to have rendered the same relief in this case also but differs from the same and the same is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and claimant-appellant No.1-Mohan Lal is awarded same compensation as awarded in the two claim petitions mentioned above i.e. `4 Lacs which the respondent- Railways shall pay from the date of this order within sixty days. If the amount of compensation is not paid to the appellant No.1 within sixty days, he shall be entitled to recover the compensation amount with interest at the F.A.O. No.3853 of 2010 [6] rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till realization of the same in favour of the claimant-appellant No.1 and against the respondent- Railways. Initially, the claim petition was filed by Mohan Lal (husband) and Pritam Dass (son of the deceased). During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal Pritam Dass son of the deceased died and his two sons and widow were brought on record as his legal representatives. It is evident that legal representatives of Pritam Dass were not dependent upon the deceased and so they are not entitled to claim the amount of compensation. The claim petition qua Mohan Lal (husband of the deceased) is allowed and he is awarded ` 4 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 19.8.2008 till realization of the same. August 3, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*