FAO No.3168 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3168 of 2008 Date of decision: September 15, 2008 Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. …..APPELLANT Versus Rani w/o late Sh.Mukesh Kumar and Others. …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Sandeep Vermani, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S.MANN, J. Claim application filed by the claimants-respondents, whereby they claimed an amount of Rs. four lac as compensation from the appellant, on account of death of Mukesh Kumar, in an untoward incident on 1.8.2006, was accepted by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide impugned judgment dated 29.4.2008. The case of the claimants-respondents was that the deceased was travelling by train from Barnala to Bathinda and when the train reached Bhuchho Mandi railway station, he alighted from the train to take water. When he was in the process of boarding the train, it started moving, as a result of which he could not board the train and fell down. FAO No.3168 of 2008 -2- As he had received injuries, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where he died. It was also pleaded by the claimants that the deceased used to travel on monthly seasonal ticket, which was valid up to 2.8.2006. Claiming that they were widow, parents and minor children of the deceased, who died in an untoward incident, the claimants sought compensation from the Railways-appellant. The railways-appellant opposed the claim and denied that the deceased was travelling from Barnala to Bathinda or that he was having a valid monthly seasonal ticket. It was also denied, if the deceased died on account of sustaining injuries due to falling from the train. In fact, no such incident had taken place on 1.8.2006. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and on account of accidental fall, he sustained injuries, which proved fatal. The incident was squarely covered within the definition of “untoward incident” as given under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act and therefore, the claimants, who were dependents on the deceased were entitled to a sum of Rs. four lac as compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the Railways-appellant. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train and when it reached railway station, Bhuchho Mandi, he got down FAO No.3168 of 2008 -3- for a while, but while he was trying to board the train once again, the train had, in the meantime, started moving slowly and he accidentally fell from the footboard and received injuries. This act of the deceased could not be termed as a criminal act, on the other hand, it fell within the definition of “untoward incident” as contained in Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. On account of accidental falling from the train, the victim received injuries, which ultimately proved fatal. No evidence has been led by the Railways-appellant to show that any of the respondents was not dependent upon the deceased. Moreover, for such an untoward incident, the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990, as amended in 1997 provided a sum of Rs. four lac as compensation on account of death of railway passenger. The said amount has been granted as compensation to the claimants-respondents. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is without any merit and therefore, dismissed. September 15, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE