Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

M.A No. 313 of 1999

Advocates

J.P.Karn
B.K.Shukla

Judges

S.K Katriar, J.

Acts

SECTION 3 TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT 1987
SECTION 120 RAILWAYS ACT 1989
section 123(c)(2) to the Act
section 124;(b)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal challenges the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench judgment dated 26.2.1999 (Application No. OA-9700215: Smt. Kaushalaya Devi v. Union of India) which had allowed a claim for compensation arising from the death of Ram Singar Singh and awarded Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the judgment. The Union of India, through the Indian Railways, filed the present appeal.

Factual events as stated in the opinion: Ram Singar Singh boarded train No. 5203 UP during the night intervening 4–5 July 1996 at Hajipur. Shortly after the train moved, he fell from the train as a result of crowding (“rush and push”), was taken to Siwan Hospital and later to Panta, where he died. A post-mortem and inquest report were prepared on the date of death. His widow and minor children filed a claim under the Railways Act (identified in the opinion as section 120, though the court discusses section 123) before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for his death.

At the Tribunal level the claimants led evidence, including the testimony of a co-villager, Lakshman Paswan, who said he was travelling on the same train from Hajipur to Gorakhpur. The Tribunal concluded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a proper railway ticket and awarded compensation under section 123(2) of the Railways Act.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a presumption arises in favour of the deceased that he was a bona fide passenger.
Whether the deceased was in fact a bona fide passenger and travelling with a proper ticket.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Union of India / Indian Railways)

Challenged the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket, contending that this finding was against the weight of evidence on the record.
Contended that the evidence of Lakshman Paswan (the co-villager/witness relied upon by the claimants and the Tribunal) was unworthy of reliance.

Claimants / Respondents (widow and children)

Submitted that the Tribunal had correctly concluded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that, given the circumstances, no better evidence could have been produced to establish that fact.
Relied on a decision of a Single Judge of the Orissa High Court—Union of India v. Smt. Jshna Kanhar, AIR 2000 Orissa 147—to support their position.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Union of India v. Smt. Jshna Kanhar, AIR 2000 Orissa 147	Relied upon by the claimants' counsel (the opinion as provided does not specify the exact principle from this decision relied upon).	The opinion records that the claimants’ counsel relied on this judgment; the provided text does not show the appellate court expressly applying, distinguishing, or discussing the authority in detail.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court identified the central statutory provision relevant to the dispute as section 123 of the Railways Act (the opinion reproduces the definition section and highlights clause 123(c)(2)). The court emphasised that section 123(c)(2) explicitly treats the accidental falling of any passenger from a train as an "untoward incident" for which compensation is available under the Act.

The court articulated the statutory scope: only bona fide passengers travelling with valid tickets fall within the protective scope of section 123(c)(2); persons who are trespassers or unauthorised passengers are not entitled to compensation under that provision.

On the facts, the court observed that the post-mortem and inquest reports—prepared shortly after death—do not mention that the deceased was carrying a railway ticket. The Tribunal had placed considerable reliance on the deposition of Lakshman Paswan to hold that the deceased had a valid ticket. The appellate court concluded that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record.

The provided opinion text contains a truncated/corrupted passage in the middle of the discussion of Lakshman Paswan’s deposition. The truncated passage prevents a fuller recital of the witness’s testimony as recorded in the opinion excerpt given. No further testimonial detail or explanation of how the appellate court evaluated the witness’s credibility appears in the intact portions of the provided text.

Based on the stated analysis of the evidence and the statutory scheme, the appellate court reached the view that the appeal should be allowed because the Tribunal’s appreciation of the evidence was flawed.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED

Direct effect on the parties as stated in the provided opinion: the appellate court expressed the view that the appeal ought to be allowed on the ground that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in its evaluation of evidence concerning whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket.

The provided opinion does not discuss any broader legal implications or the formulation of any new legal principle. The opinion also does not, in the provided excerpt, set out the precise consequential order (for example, explicit directions to reverse, remit, or modify the Tribunal's judgment) beyond the appellant‑allowance conclusion contained in the text excerpt.

Notes on Source Limitations

This summary is strictly limited to the information contained in the provided opinion excerpt. Where the excerpt is silent, truncated, or contains textual corruption, the summary does not attempt to infer missing facts, orders, or reasoning beyond what the text expressly states.

Show full summary ...

Union Of India Through The General Manager, North Eastern Railways Gorakhpur (U.P) v. Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.1999, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, in Application no. 0A-9700215 (Smt. Kaushalaya Devi v. Union of India), whereby the application of the claimants (the respondents herein) for compensation on account of the death of Ram Singar Singh, has been allowed and compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of judgment has been allowed. The Union of India through the Indian Railway has preferred this appeal.

2. One Ram Singar Singh had boarded 5203 up during the night intervening 4.7.1996 and 5.7.1996 at Hajipur for a destination which is not clear from the records of the case. Soon after the train had started moving, he fell down from the train due to the rush and push. He was taken to Siwan Hospital and ultimately to Panta where he died. The post-mortem was done on the body and inquest report was prepared on the date of the death itself. Thereafter his widow and children who were minors on the date of the accident, filed an application under section 120 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, claiming compensation for the death of Ram Singar Singh.

3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The claimants examined Lakshman Paswan, a co-villager who claimed that he was travelling by the same train from Hajipur to Gorakhpur. The Tribunal has held that Ram Singar Singh was a bona fide passenger with proper railway ticket and therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation within the meaning of section 123(2) of the Act with interest.

4. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant (Union of India) has submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned judgment to the effect that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a proper railway ticket is against the weight of evidence on record. He has also submitted that the evidence of Lakshman Paswan is unworthy of reliance.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has submitted in opposition that the Tribunal in his well-considered judgment has arrived at the correct conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In the circumstances of the case, no better evidence could have been brought on record to establish that he was a bona fide passenger. He relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court, AIR 2000 Orissa 147 (Union of India v. Smt. Jshna Kanhar).

6. In view of the contention of the parties, the following issues arises for consideration in this appeal:

(i) In the facts and circumstances of the case whether or not presumption arises in favour of the deceased that he was a bona fide passenger.

(ii) Whether or not the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he was travelling with a proper ticket.

7. Having considered the submissions and having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this appeal ought to be allowed. The Tribunal has misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record. Section 123 of the Act is relevant in the present context and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:

“123. Definition.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires;

(a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124;

(b) “dependent” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:

(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;

(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a predeceased son, if dependent wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;

(iii) a minor child of a predeceased daughter, if wholly dependent on the deceased passenger;

(iv) the paternal grand-parent wholly dependent on the deceased passenger.

(1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; or

(ii) the making of violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shootout or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.”

(underscored by me)

8. It is thus manifest from a plain reading of section 123(c)(2) to the Act (the underlined portion in particular) that the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers is an untoward incident entitling the passenger or heirs/legal representatives to compensation under the Act. In the scheme of the Act, only bona fide passengers with valid tickets for journey would be covered by section 123(c)(2) of the Act and the rest are trespassers and unauthorised passengers not entitled to any compensation.

9. It appears from the evidence on record that the deceased died a few hours after his accident and the post-mortem and inquest reports were prepared soon thereafter which does not mention that the deceased was carrying a railway ticket for the journey. The Tribunal has laid considerable emphasis on the deposition of Lakshman Paswan and has held on the strength of the same that the deceased was carrying a valid railway ticket. He deposed to the effect that he had seen Ram Singar Singh at the rail- petitioner has been shifted from Marhaura to accommodate respondent no. 6. Coming as if deed pursuant to the deliberations by the Establishment Committee, in the absence of any cogent materials suggesting to the contrary, I find no substance in the submission which has been noticed simply to be rejected.

10. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

Union Of India Throu... v. Smt. Kaushalaya Devi...