FAO No.2913 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2913 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision.14.12.2010 Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. ......Appellant Versus Shri Sardari Lal son of Shri Nand Lal and another ......Respondents Present: Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is against an award passed by the Railway Tribunal in a case where a person claiming to be a passenger fell down and due to “untoward” accident his leg was crushed and later amputated ultimately resulting in death. Two contentions were urged on behalf of the Railway Administration; one, he was not a bona fide passenger and further a search was conducted and nothing was found from the search, meaning to suggest that he had no ticket and he was a trespasser. The other contention was that the vehicle was running at that time between 10 to 15 kms and the accident had taken place when the claimant was attempted to get into the train, slipped from the path and went under the wheels. FAO No.2913 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 3. Both these issues have been considered and in my view, appropriately by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found from the evidence of AW2, Ram Kishan that he was co-passenger and the deceased had purchased ordinary ticket from Dhurana railway station for journey to Panipat and the Tribunal reasoned that the Railway Administration had not produced any specific document to show that on that day no ticket was issued. The learned counsel would submit that it was not the Railway Administration's case that no tickets had been issued but there was nothing to show that the ticket had been issued in favour of the deceased. I will see this to be merely an issue of appreciation of fact and would not make any intervention thereof entered by the Tribunal. 4. As regards the contention whether it was an untoward accident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act of 1989, the Tribunal has held that a person's falling while boarding the train would still fall within the definition and therefore, the claim was properly made. The order issued by the Tribunal conforms to law and I find nothing substantial either on fact or law to merit fresh consideration in appeal. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 14, 2010 Pankaj*