- (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of 10,000.00 by way of damages for an accident which the plaintiff's husband suffered at railway station Katoghan on the Northern Railway. The plaintiff's husband was knocked down by a goods train on 10-5-1966 on that station.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that Sri Babu Lal alias Babu Khan, the plaintiff's husband, had to go to Khaga by a passenger train on 10-5-1966 in the morning. The train was about to arrive at 8 a. m. He went shortly before that time and purchased ticket No. 19375 for Khaga. It is admitted by the defendant- respondent that there was no over-bride at the Katoghan railway station for platform No.3 where the passenger train was to arrive, and passengers used to cross the way lines in order to reach that platform. Babu Khan having purchased the ticket went to platform No. 3 on the announcement that the train was arriving. The platforms of this station are not high according to the statement of P. W, 1. They are only 6" to 9" high. As soon as the plaintiff's husband walked down the platform No. 1 he was knocked down by a goods train which was coming at a high speed. Both the courts below have held that the goods train was running at a speed of 45 miles per hour, the permissible speed being only 35 miles per hour Babu Khan died as a result of the accident. His wife, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit claiming Rs. 10,000.00 by way of damages against the railway administration. The defence delivered was that Babu Khan was a trespasser having no Railway ticket and hence having no right to cross the railway lines. It was further pleaded that the railway administration was not required or bound to conduct an over-bridge for the railway traffic and that the deceased contributed to the accident by his own negligence. There was however, no plea that he appeared suddenly before the train and the driver could not avert the accident. The two main defences thus raised were that the deceased was a trespasser on the railway lines and that he was guilty of contributory negligence. The claim accordingly was not sustainable and the amount claimed in any view was excessive,
(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit for the amount claimed on the finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger for Khaga having purchased ticket No. 19375, that he was passing through the railway track only because there was no over-bride provided for going to platform No. 3; thus he was not a trespasser but a licensee; that the goods train was passing at a high speed of 45 miles per hour, which was in excess of the permissible speed; that neither the Driver gave any whistle, nor did the station staff give any warning. There was thus negligence on the part of the railway and it was responsible for the accident.;