K.K.MATHEW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the applicant in D No.340/2016 on the files of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. This appeal is filed challenging the order dismissing the said application on a finding that the application is not maintainable under the Railway Act.

(2.) According to the averments in the application, on 24.11.2015 the applicant along with his daughter boarded Dhanbad Express No.13351 and alighted at Thuravoor station at 6.45 p.m on platform no.2. The entrance to the said railway station, for the ingress and egress, was provided to platform no.1 only. Since there is no foot over bridge to reach platform no.1 and Nizamuddhin Express had occupied the track near to platform no.1, they were unable to reach the entrance due to the lack of foot over bridge connecting platform no.2 and platform no.1. Since there was no other way, they were compelled to walk through the railway track towards the level cross, so as to get out from the railway station. While they were walking towards the level cross another train 'Shalimar Express' hit on the back of the applicant's daughter and she was injured in that accident. Eventually, she succumbed to the said injuries on the same day itself. So also it was contended that the negligent act committed by loco pilot of the train Nizamuddin Express, by not blowing the horn also, contributed to the cause of death. Thus, the sum and substance of the pleadings in the application is that the accident was caused by the lack of foot over bridge from platform no.2 to platform no.1 and thereby the respondent railway was liable to pay damages to the applicant, for the loss caused by the death of his daughter.

(3.) The respondent contended that the application is not maintainable as it will not come under an untoward incident provided under Sec.124 of the Railway Act. After considering the objection raised by the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the application on a finding that the application is not maintainable. The legality and correctness of the said order dismissing the application on a preliminary issue is challenged in this appeal.