In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.5121 of 2011 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:11.8.2011 Union of India through GM, Northern Railway .....Appellant v. Prakasho Devi and others .....Respondents .... 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. Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. Union of India (appellant) has preferred this appeal against the award/order dated 21.4.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby husband of respondent No.1 Prakasho Devi, namely, Gopi Ram had died in a railway accident, whereby the respondents were granted compensation to the extent of `4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization. It stands proved on record that Gopi Ram husband of F.A.O. No.5121 of 2011 (O&M) [2] respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4 had died while he was travelling in train No.2 EDP MEMU passenger on 20.8.2009 and was standing near the door of the train. He purchased one ordinary second class ticket from Railway Station Panipat to Diwana and put it in his pocket. There was huge rush of passengers. When the train in question reached between Panipat and Diwana Railway Station, Gopi Ram accidentally fell down from the train due to jerk and jolt, coupled with pull and push of passengers and received serious grievous and multiple injuries on vital parts of his body. He succumbed to his injuries at the spot. His ticket, cash, Tiffin, cloth bag was lost in the above untoward incident. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record very carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before me that Gopi Ram was not a passenger within the provisions of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act since he did not produce any railway ticket to establish his claim as a bona fide passenger. He argued that the deceased was unauthorizedly crossing the railway lines in unsafe manner while going to attend his duties in Vardhman Factory where he was working and in the process he came in contact with the train. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence and material on record came to the conclusion that in the written statement of the appellant there was no pleading to the effect that the deceased was unauthorizedly crossing lines in unsafe manner for the purpose of going to work in Vardhman Factory and in the process he came in the contact of the train. The appellant pleaded that injuries, if any, must have occurred due to Gopi F.A.O. No.5121 of 2011 (O&M) [3] Ram’s criminal act and negligent act, which provides protection to the Railway Administration from liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The pleading of the appellant was not specific and bereft of a stand. In the DRM report, the conclusion drawn out was not supported with any document or evidence. It was based on assumption that since deceased used to work in a factory close to his house, he used to cross track. The appellant did not produce any concerned person about the contention that deceased at the time was crossing railway track. On the other hand, respondents’ side produced the evidence of Jaswant Singh (AW-3), who appeared before the Tribunal and made a positive statement that deceased had purchased ticket in his presence and boarded the standing train at platform No.1 at Panipat Railway Station. Nothing inconsistent came out in the affidavit and cross- examination of the witness. The Railway Administration admitted in its DRM report that dead-body of deceased was recovered from the railway track. The attempt of Railway Administration to portray the incident as one taking place due to unauthorizedly crossing the track is not tenable due to no specific pleading in the written statement Therefore, it was held that deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of incident. Since the recovery of dead body of the deceased could not be explained in terms of proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act (a) to (e) due to no case by the appellant, it was held that deceased died in an untoward incident and the same is covered within the ambit of Section 123 (c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act and the legal dependents of the deceased were held entitled to compensation from the appellant. It stands proved on record that Gopi Ram husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4 had died in an F.A.O. No.5121 of 2011 (O&M) [4] untoward incident. So far as payment of compensation in the case of death or injury to a railway passenger in the course of a railway accident or untoward incident is concerned, the same is governed by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 as amended in 1997. These Rules provide a sum of `4,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of a railway passenger. So, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the extent indicated above. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. August 11, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*