FA/513/1999 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 513 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= UNION OF INDIA - Appellant(s) Versus NANDABEN DILIPBHAI SONHAR (BAGUL) & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS REETA CHANDARANA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR DN PANDYA for Defendant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 30/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Union of India has FA/513/1999 2/4 JUDGMENT challenged the judgment and award dated 12/10/1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Claim Petition No.0A9800040 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the claimant. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal is as under: 2.1) On 8/12/1997, Shri Dilipbhai Kashinath Sonhar was returning from Udhna to Navsari. For this purpose, he had got ticket for Udhna to Navsari. While Shri Dilipbhai was entering in the second class compartment of the train, he fell down due to heavy rush and got serious injuries on the Udhna Platform itself. He was taken to a private hospital at Udhna from where he was shifted to Navsari Civil Hospital and ultimately to Surat Hospital for treatment on advice of doctors attending him. During the treatment at Surat, ultimately he passed away on 4/1/1998 at midnight. Therefore, the aforesaid claim came to be filed which was allowed as stated above. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the incident in question was not at all an accident as defined under the Act. FA/513/1999 3/4 JUDGMENT According to him, it is not proved that the victim who sustained injuries from falling down for which he is entitled to compensation. 5. While considering the case of the claimants, in para 10 of the Judgment award, the Tribunal has observed as under: 5.1) According to Section 125 (b) (i) (ii) wife and dependent parents are entitled to compensation. In this case, it has come to light that father of the deceased had married again and living separately and his whereabouts are not known. His mother is aged 64 years staying with Smt. Nandaben. Since the father of the deceased is not staying with her, Smt. Nandaben and the mother of the deceased are the only dependents and real claimants of the compensation. 6. From the evidence on record, the factum of accident is proved by the appropriate evidence. Considering the documentary evidence on record and findings of the Court below, I am of the view that the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal is just and proper. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. FA/513/1999 4/4 JUDGMENT 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. No order as to cost. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)