- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award of Railway Claims Tribunal (in short Tribunal') rejecting the claim of the appellant. Brief matrix of the case is summarized as under:
(2.) ONE Mohd. Naim, son of appellant Smt. Akhtari, while travelling by 50 Dn. Passenger train from Hargaon Railway Station to Lakhimpur Railway Station on 26. 4. 1998 fell down from train due to the sudden jerk at Km. 113/6. According to the appellant, the deceased was having a Second Class ticket. After falling down from the train, he was dragged for more than 100 meters and suffered serious injuries at right leg and knee of the left leg as well as skull. The bruises and scratches were found on the stomach and back of the body of the deceased as per medical report. Clothes were torn and he was only with underwear and terricot shirt when his dead body was recovered. At the time of search by the police, no ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased's body. According to the appellant, the deceased was the sole earning member of his family leaving behind old mother (appellant), a brother and five sisters. The appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs before the Tribunal. An affidavit was filed before the Tribunal by the appellant Smt. Akhtari, mother of the deceased with the statement that Mohd. Naim was a Motor Cycle Mechanic at Lakhimpur and he was residing at Lakhimpur with his relatives but since last 15 days, he was coming to his village to meet his parent almost daily. It was pleaded through affidavit that Mohd. Naim before boarding the train had purchased ticket in presence of one Ram Narayan and because of heavy rush and crowd in the train, he was compelled to stand near the door. Since the door was not closed as usual, because of heavy jerk, he fell down from train and dragged upto some distance receiving serious injuries. Mohd. Naim succumbed to the injuries at the spot. From the evidence on record, it seems to be admitted fact that there was heavy rush and crowd in the train and the deceased was standing just in front of the door. Later on, as a result of jerk of the train, he fell down from the moving train. Driver Dan Singh and Guard Ram Dhani of the train had filed their affidavits and written statements that the train was moving slowly without any jerk and it was on the turning point and on account of his own fault that Mohd. Naim who was standing on the footrest of the compartment fell down from the train.
(3.) FROM the medical report, it is ample clear that Mohd. Naim fell down from the train and succumbed to the injuries. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that there was heavy rush and crowd in the train and Mohd. Naim was compelled to stand near the door. However, learned Tribunal accepted the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased fell down from the train because of his own reckless and negligent act. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2001 (3) T. A. C. 319 (A. P.), Union of India v. Uggina Srinivasa Rao, where Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the accidental fall from any part of the compartment is covered by 'untoward incident'. Learned Tribunal had treated the accident as 'untoward incident' and held that the deceased was not bonafide passenger and since no ticket was recovered from his possession, he is not entitled for any compensation. While assailing the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that it was because of heavy crowd in the compartment, the deceased was compelled to stand adjacent to the door and since he dragged about 100 meters, the clothes of the deceased were torn hence the ticket purchased by the deceased might have lost. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava that the deceased was having ticket and since he dragged about 100 meters or more, it was natural that when the body was found, the ticket might not have been found in the possession of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has further given much emphasis on the fact that because of dragging, the deceased was having only underwear on his body apart from torn shirt. It is proved from the medical report that bruises and scratches were found on his body with dragged marks.;