RAJES KUMAR, S.S.CHAUHAN, JJ. - (1.) THIS first appeal from order is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.9.1999, whereby the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the appellant was travelling on a second class ticket bearing No. Ho. 12001 from Barabanki to Lucknow and when the appellant was trying to alight from the train at Daliganj Railway Station due to a sudden jerk he slipped and fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries. One co-worker, namely, Harish Chandra Verma (Munshi) was travelling alongwith the appellant. Harish Chandra Verma (Munshi) gave proper assistance to the appellant by lifting him from underneath the platform. The appellant was made to lie-down on the platform in an injured condition. The information was also given to the railway officials who arranged first aid and ambulance. In the meantime, Harish Chandra Verma (Munshi) returned back alongwith all staff of the appellant's office. Thereafter, the appellant was brought to the Balrampur Hospital by G.R.P. and fellow staff workers. On account of the aforesaid incident, the appellant's both legs and right elbow were badly crushed. The appellant's right leg was amputated twice, i.e., on 22.4.1998 and 18.5.1998 and left leg was operated upon thigh and open reduction and internal fixation of (Lt.) femur with K-nail was placed and lastly open reduction and screw fixation with bone grafting was done on 29.6.1998 in Aliganj Hospital, for which the appellant had to spend huge amount of money. The appellant's right hand was also operated and screw fixation was done. It was stated that the appellant was still under treatment. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant has not made out a case for grant of compensation and thereby dismissed the claim petition by means of order dated 24.9; 1999.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in a correct perspective and has rather ignored the relevant evidence which was sufficient for allowance of the claim petition. The appellant's case is within the domain of 'untoward incident' and, therefore, the case of Union of India and others v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh, 1984 SC 1737, was not applicable and has wrongly been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. It has also been submitted that the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2003) also provide under Rule 7 that proper investigation has to be made by an officer of the force, not below the rank of Inspector, and the said report has to be forwarded under Rule 10 (2) to the Divisional Railway Manager and Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force. The Divisional Railway Manager, on receipt of the report, shall examine the same and if he is satisfied that the investigation is complete, he shall pass an order for accepting the said report and if he has reason to believe that some more inquiry is required in the matter, he shall refer the matter back for investigation to the officer of the Force alongwith his observations for further investigation and the office of the Force thereafter, on receipt of said reference, shall examine the matter and submit the report immediately to the Divisional Railway Manager. Final orders on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent, who shall maintain the records and make necessary entries in the station diary to this effect. Rule 13 stipulates that the investigation report alongwith the comments of the Divisional Railway Manager shall be placed before the Claims Tribunal by Railway Administration while filing written statement in the case in which compensation has been claimed on the basis of such untoward incident. In the present case, no such investigation report has been placed before the Claims Tribunal by the Railway Administration while filing written statement. The submission is that the untoward incident has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001 (2) TAG 250 and the purpose and object, with which the Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) was introduced as per Railway (Amendment) Act, 28 of 1994, was for awarding compensation for untoward incident which occurs in the course of working of railway and prior to it the compensation could have been granted to the victims only in the case of accidents and with this avowed purpose, the Parliament in its wisdom inserted a new category of disasters both manmade and otherwise to be the cause of action for claiming compensation.;