1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3330 OF 2010 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 1351 OF 2005 Ganpat Mahadeo Sawant & ors ........Applicants versus Union of India ........Respondent. Mr. C.M. Jha adv. for the Applicant. Mr. A.N. Samant adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 6th September, 2010. P.C.: 1. This is an application for deleting the name of the appellant no.1 on account of death of the appellant no.1. For the reasons stated in the the application, the same is allowed. The name of the appellant no. 1 is deleted. Since the respondent no.2 is the only legal heir of appellant no.1, there is no necessary to bring the L.Rs. of the appellant no.1 on record. (B. R. GAVAI, J.) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1351 OF 2005 Ganpat Mahadeo Sawant & ors ........Applicants versus Union of India ........Respondent. Mr. C.M. Jha adv. for the Applicant. Mr. A.N. Samant adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 6th September, 2010. P.C.: 2. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the Railway Tribunal dated 19-8-2004 thereby rejecting the application filed by the appellant and holding that the appellant was not entitled to compensation. 3. It is the case of the appellant that deceased Mandar, who is the son of the appellant was traveling in the train on 7-4-2000 from Dombivli to Masjid Bunder. It is the case of the appellant that since the train was over crowded he fell down from the local train at Vidyavihar station. As such he was entitled to compensation. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the deceased himself stuck against a electric pole near Vidyavihar station due to his own negligence and as such was not entitled to compensation. 3 4. The appellants in support of their claim had examined one Manoj shirodkar as A.W.no.2, who had deposed that he was a follow traveler along with the deceased and since the train was over crowded, they were required to stand near the gate and that he died due to stuck against a electric pole. The learned tribunal has also come to a finding of fact that it was proved that the deceased was traveling in the train and had died as he struck with the electric pole. It was however held by the learned tribunal that the incident cannot be said to be covered in the expression of “untoward incident” as defined in sec. 123(c) of the Act, but will have to be termed as self inflicted injury provided under the provisions sec. 120(c). It can thus clearly be seen that the learned tribunal itself has recorded a finding that it was proved that the deceased was traveling in the local train and struck with the electric pole while traveling in the train. 3. The only question that will have to be considered is as to whether the incident can be termed to be untoward incident or self inflicted injury. The issue is no more res integra. 4. The two learned single Judges of this court in the case of (1) Union of India Vs, Suchitra Ganesh Pathare & ors reported in 2008(4) Mh.L.J. 96 and (2) Sahadeo Sibdhu Sanas Vs. Union of India reported in 2010(2) Bom.C.R. 43, have in unequivocal terms held that if the deceased standing at the door of the local train was hit by the pole by the side of the railway track, due to overcrowding, it will be covered by the expression of “untoward incident” and the legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled to 4 compensation. In that view of the matter the appeals are allowed and the respondents are directed to pay statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application filed by the present applicant till today within a period of four weeks from today. It is further directed that if there is any further delay therefrom, in making the payment of compensation the interest will be paid at the rate of 9% for the period of delayed payment, from that period of four weeks from today. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)