FAO No.4463 of 2008 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.4463 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 11.02.2009 **** Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi . . . . Appellant VS. Vivek Rana . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Sandeep Vermani, Advocate for the UOI/appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dated 1.5.2008. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12.3.2005, the claimant (Vivek Rana) was traveling from Jaipur to Jagadhari by train. He was standing near the gate of the compartment of the train for alighting. But due to heavy rush in the train, suddenly, somebody pushed him from backside as result of which he fell down on platform No.2 and received multiple injuries including an injury on his right leg below knee. His right leg was amputated and he suffered 70% disability in the said railway accident. At the time of accident, he was working for M/s Madhu Auto-Mobile, Yamuna Nagar. The claimant (Vivek Rana) claimed @ Rs.10 lac on FAO No.4463 of 2008 - 2 - account of injuries suffered in the railway accident. The appellant/Railway took a plea that Railway Administration is absolved from liability as provided under Section 124-A. However, under Section 124-A the Railway Administration is absolved in case of suicide or attempted suit; self-inflicted injury; own criminal act; any act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity; any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. In the present case, however, it has been found by the learned Tribunal that injuries suffered by the claimant (Vivek Rana) was due to the railway accident which does not fall within the perview Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and as such the appeal is dismissed, in limine, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 11, 2009 JUDGE vivek