Case: KALANDI CHARAN SAHOO Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH-EAST CENTRAL RAILWAYS

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally at this stage itself with their consent. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellants herein had filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as RCT) on account of death of their son Sunil Kumar Sahoo in a train accident that occurred on 20.11.2005. The deceased was the employee in Railway and was holding the post of Assistant Loco-Pilot at the relevant time. He was posted at Raipur under the South East Central Railway, Bilaspur. On 20.11.2005, he was returning from Durg to Raipur, when he fell down from the running train near D. Cabin of Raipur Railway Station and, as a result thereof, he died on the spot. 4. Though Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) mandates the Railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.02.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.04.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de-trained from the moving train at D. Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal, i.e., F.A.O. No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and nonspeaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned Award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference. 5. It is in these circumstances, the appellants are before us in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs. 4 lakhs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down.Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs. 4 lakhs.