In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.5827 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:9.11.2011 Smt. Seeta Devi and another .....Appellants v. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway .....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. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The appellants are aggrieved against the judgment dated 7.5.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby claim petition filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of the death of their son Vinod Kumar in a railway untoward incident on 4.6.2008 has been dismissed by holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger at the time of incident, which prohibits payment of any compensation to the claimants as per the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 F.A.O. No.5827 of 2010 [2] (`hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). Vinod Kumar was travelling from Kharar to Mohali on 4.6.2008 by train No.2 CAN. He purchased railway ticket from Kharar to Mohali and boarded the train. He accidentally fell down from the train due to jerk and jolt when the train crossed KM No.12/1 between Kharar and Mohali railway stations. He received grievous and multiple injuries on vital parts of his body and succumbed to his injuries. His dead body was taken to Civil Hospital, Mohali and GRP, Mohali recorded DDR No.3. The Police recovered identity card and diary from the deceased during investigation. However, the purse containing money, ticket, other personal and relevant documents could not be recovered from which it could be gathered the class of travel and ticket/pass number and the destination of the journey. I have heard Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-Union of India and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before me that deceased had boarded train No.2 CAN from Kharar to Mohali and during the journey he fell down accidentally due to the jerk and jolt and died on the spot, therefore, this is an untoward incident which comes within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and the appellants are entitled to receive compensation from the Railway Administration. On the other hand, Mr. Karamjit Verma, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket has been recovered from his person at the time of accident so it could not be proved that he was traveling in train No.2 CAN from Kharar to F.A.O. No.5827 of 2010 [3] Mohali, hence it is not an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and no interference is called for. The claim petition has been rejected solely on the ground that son of the claimants was unauthorisedly travelling at the door of the compartment and fell down from the train due to his own negligence. It is not disputed that the deceased fell down from the running train and has died. While deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal reached at a conclusion that the deceased was travelling without ticket. In order to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the appellants have produced affidavit of Vinod Kumar (AW-2), who has stated that the deceased had purchased a ticket at Kharar railway station before boarding the train. In the cross- examination, it has been stated that the deceased met this witness at Kharar Bus Stand and while leaving requested him to drop him at Kharar railway station by bike since he was in a hurry to reach Kharar railway station to catch the train. The Tribunal disbelieved this story mainly on the ground that the more practical approach was to travel from Kharar bus stand to Mohali by road, it would have taken lesser time as compared to time taken from going from Bus Stand Kharar to Railway Station Kharar and then by train from Kharar to Mohali while availability of ready road transport between the places was abundant. I am of the considered opinion that this type of supposition by the Tribunal cannot be appreciated. After accident, one cannot say what was going on in the mind of the deceased to have chosen to travel by train in place of road transport. May be the destination where he was to reach was nearer to the railway station than to the bus F.A.O. No.5827 of 2010 [4] stand. During the `Jamatalashi' the purse possessed by the deceased was not recovered from the body of the deceased. It is possible that the deceased might have kept his railway ticket in the purse. Otherwise, it cannot be accepted that a person is travelling in a train and will not be keeping a purse or money with him. Under these circumstances, the evidence of AW-2 Vinod Kumar, who has stated that the deceased purchased a ticket at Kharar railway station appears to be genuine and true. Once, it is established that a traveller had died in the premises of the respondent, whether there is any negligence on the part of the traveller or not becomes meaningless. This view is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jameela and others v. Union of India, 2011 (1) Law Herald (SC) 599. The Supreme Court held that standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian Trains is not covered by clause (c) of the Section 124-A of the Act. From the above, it is evident that Vinod Kumar has died in a Railway accident. It is thus proved that Vinod Kumar was a bona fide passenger. It stands proved on record that Vinod Kumar, son of the appellants had died in an 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 F.A.O. No.5827 of 2010 [5] passenger. So, the appellants are held entitled to a sum of `4,00,000/- as compensation. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and claimants-appellants are awarded compensation of `4,00,000/-. However, they shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of adjudication of the award. November 9, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*